CHAPTER 1.X. -- THE GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'

[The growth of the 'Origin of Species' has been briefly described in my

father's words (above). The letters given in the present and following

chapters will illustrate and amplify the history thus sketched out.]

It is clear that in the early part of the voyage of the "Beagle" he did

not feel it inconsistent with his views to express himself in thoroughly

orthodox language as to the genesis of new species. Thus in 1834 he

wrote (MS. Journals, page 468.) at Valparaiso: "I have already found

beds of recent shells yet retaining their colour at an elevation of 1300

feet, and beneath, the level country is strewn with them. It seems not a

very improbable conjecture that the want of animals may be owing to none

having been created since this country was raised from the sea."

This passage does not occur in the published 'Journal,' the last proof

of which was finished in 1837; and this fact harmonizes with the change

we know to have been proceeding in his views. But in the published

'Journal' we find passages which show a point of view more in accordance

with orthodox theological natural history than with his later views.

Thus, in speaking of the birds Synallaxis and Scytalopus (1st edition

page 353; 2nd edition page 289), he says: "When finding, as in this

case, any animal which seems to play so insignificant a part in the

great scheme of nature, one is apt to wonder why a distinct species

should have been created."

A comparison of the two editions of the 'Journal' is instructive, as

giving some idea of the development of his views on evolution. It does

not give us a true index of the mass of conjecture which was taking

shape in his mind, but it shows us that he felt sure enough of the truth

of his belief to allow a stronger tinge of evolution to appear in the

second edition. He has mentioned in the Autobiography that it was not

until he read Malthus that he got a clear view of the potency of natural

selection. This was in 1838--a year after he finished the first edition

(it was not published until 1839), and five years before the second

edition was written (1845). Thus the turning-point in the formation of

his theory took place between the writing of the two editions.

I will first give a few passages which are practically the same in

the two editions, and which are, therefore, chiefly of interest as

illustrating his frame of mind in 1837.

The case of the two species of Molothrus (1st edition page 61; 2nd

edition page 53) must have been one of the earliest instances noticed

by him of the existence of representative species--a phenomenon which we

know ('Autobiography,') struck him deeply. The discussion on introduced

animals (1st edition page 139; 2nd edition page 120) shows how much he

was impressed by the complicated interdependence of the inhabitants of a

given area.

An analogous point of view is given in the discussion (1st edition

page 98; 2nd edition page 85) of the mistaken belief that large animals

require, for their support, a luxuriant vegetation; the incorrectness of

this view is illustrated by the comparison of the fauna of South

Africa and South America, and the vegetation of the two continents.

The interest of the discussion is that it shows clearly our a priori

ignorance of the conditions of life suitable to any organism.

There is a passage which has been more than once quoted as bearing

on the origin of his views. It is where he discusses the striking

difference between the species of mice on the east and west of the Andes

(1st edition page 399): "Unless we suppose the same species to have been

created in two different countries, we ought not to expect any closer

similarity between the organic beings on the opposite sides of the

Andes than on shores separated by a broad strait of the sea." In the

2nd edition page 327, the passage is almost verbally identical, and is

practically the same.

There are other passages again which are more strongly evolutionary in

the 2nd edition, but otherwise are similar to the corresponding passages

in the 1st edition. Thus, in describing the blind Tuco-tuco (1st edition

page 60; 2nd edition page 52), in the first edition he makes no allusion

to what Lamarck might have thought, nor is the instance used as an

example of modification, as in the edition of 1845.

A striking passage occurs in the 2nd edition (page 173) on the

relationship between the "extinct edentata and the living sloths,

ant-eaters, and armadillos."

"This wonderful relationship in the same continent between the dead

and the living, will, I do not doubt, hereafter throw more light on the

appearance of organic beings on our earth, and their disappearance from

it, than any other class of facts."

This sentence does not occur in the 1st edition, but he was evidently

profoundly struck by the disappearance of the gigantic forerunners of

the present animals. The difference between the discussions in the two

editions is most instructive. In both, our ignorance of the conditions

of life is insisted on, but in the second edition, the discussion is

made to led up to a strong statement of the intensity of the struggle

for life. Then follows a comparison between rarity (In the second

edition, page 146, the destruction of Niata cattle by droughts is

given as a good example of our ignorance of the causes of rarity or

extinction. The passage does not occur in the first edition.) and

extinction, which introduces the idea that the preservation and

dominance of existing species depend on the degree in which they are

adapted to surrounding conditions. In the first edition, he is merely

"tempted to believe in such simple relations as variation of climate

and food, or introduction of enemies, or the increased number of other

species, as the cause of the succession of races." But finally (1st

edition) he ends the chapter by comparing the extinction of a species to

the exhaustion and disappearance of varieties of fruit-trees: as if he

thought that a mysterious term of life was impressed on each species at

its creation.

The difference of treatment of the Galapagos problem is of some

interest. In the earlier book, the American type of the productions

of the islands is noticed, as is the fact that the different islands

possess forms specially their own, but the importance of the whole

problem is not so strongly put forward. Thus, in the first edition, he

merely says:--

"This similarity of type between distant islands and continents, while

the species are distinct, has scarcely been sufficiently noticed. The

circumstance would be explained, according to the views of some authors,

by saying that the creative power had acted according to the same law

over a wide area."--(1st edition page 474.)

This passage is not given in the second edition, and the generalisations

on geographical distribution are much wider and fuller. Thus he asks:--

"Why were their aboriginal inhabitants, associated...in different

proportions both in kind and number from those on the Continent, and

therefore acting on each other in a different manner--why were they

created on American types of organisation?"--(2nd edition page 393.)

The same difference of treatment is shown elsewhere in this chapter.

Thus the gradation in the form of beak presented by the thirteen allied

species of finch is described in the first edition (page 461) without

comment. Whereas in the second edition (page 380) he concludes:--

"One might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this

Archipelago, one species has been taken and modified for different

ends."

On the whole it seems to me remarkable that the difference between the

two editions is not greater; it is another proof of the author's caution

and self-restraint in the treatment of his theory. After reading the

second edition of the 'Journal,' we find with a strong sense of surprise

how far developed were his views in 1837. We are enabled to form

an opinion on this point from the note-books in which he wrote down

detached thoughts and queries. I shall quote from the first note-book,

completed between July 1837 and February 1838: and this is the more

worth doing, as it gives us an insight into the condition of his

thoughts before the reading of Malthus. The notes are written in his

most hurried style, so many words being omitted, that it is often

difficult to arrive at the meaning. With a few exceptions (indicated by

square brackets) (In the extracts from the note-book ordinary brackets

represent my father's parentheses.) I have printed the extracts as

written; the punctuation, however, has been altered, and a few obvious

slips corrected where it seemed necessary. The extracts are not

printed in order, but are roughly classified. (On the first page of the

note-book, is written "Zoonomia"; this seems to refer to the first few

pages in which reproduction by gemmation is discussed, and where the

"Zoonomia" is mentioned. Many pages have been cut out of the note-book,

probably for use in writing the Sketch of 1844, and these would have no

doubt contained the most interesting extracts.)

"Propagation explains why modern animals same type as extinct, which is

law, almost proved."

"We can see why structure is common in certain countries when we can

hardly believe necessary, but if it was necessary to one forefather,

the result would be as it is. Hence antelopes at Cape of Good Hope;

marsupials at Australia."

"Countries longest separated greatest differences--if separated

from immersage, possibly two distinct types, but each having its

representatives--as in Australia."

"Will this apply to whole organic kingdom when our planet first cooled?"

The two following extracts show that he applied the theory of evolution

to the "whole organic kingdom" from plants to man.

"If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our fellow

brethren in pain, disease, death, suffering and famine--our slaves in

the most laborious works, our companions in our amusements--they may

partake [of?] our origin in one common ancestor--we may be all melted

together."

"The different intellects of man and animals not so great as between

living things without thought (plants), and living things with thought

(animals)."

The following extracts are again concerned with an a priori view of

the probability of the origin of species by descent ["propagation," he

called it.].

"The tree of life should perhaps be called the coral of life, base of

branches dead; so that passages cannot be seen."

"There never may have been grade between pig and tapir, yet from some

common progenitor. Now if the intermediate ranks had produced infinite

species, probably the series would have been more perfect."

At another place, speaking of intermediate forms he says:--

"Cuvier objects to propagation of species by saying, why have not some

intermediate forms been discovered between Palaeotherium, Megalonyx,

Mastodon, and the species now living? Now according to my view (in

S. America) parent of all Armadilloes might be brother to

Megatherium--uncle now dead."

Speaking elsewhere of intermediate forms, he remarks:--

"Opponents will say--'show them me.' I will answer yes, if you will show

me every step between bulldog and greyhound."

Here we see that the case of domestic animals was already present in his

mind as bearing on the production of natural species. The disappearance

of intermediate forms naturally leads up to the subject of extinction,

with which the next extract begins.

"It is a wonderful fact, horse, elephant, and mastodon, dying out about

same time in such different quarters.

"Will Mr. Lyell say that some [same?] circumstance killed it over a

tract from Spain to South America?--(Never).

"They die, without they change, like golden pippins; it is a GENERATION

OF SPECIES like generation OF INDIVIDUALS.

"Why does individual die? To perpetuate certain peculiarities (therefore

adaptation), and obliterate accidental varieties, and to accommodate

itself to change (for, of course, change, even in varieties, is

accommodation). Now this argument applies to species.

"If individual cannot propagate he has no issue--so with species.

"If SPECIES generate other SPECIES, their race is not utterly cut off:--

like golden pippins, if produced by seed, go on--otherwise all die.

"The fossil horse generated, in South Africa, zebra--and

continued--perished in America.

"All animals of same species are bound together just like buds of

plants, which die at one time, though produced either sooner or later.

Prove animals like plants--trace gradation between associated and

non-associated animals--and the story will be complete."

Here we have the view already alluded to of a term of life impressed on

a species.

But in the following note we get extinction connected with unfavourable

variation, and thus a hint is given of natural selection:

"With respect to extinction, we can easily see that [a] variety of [the]

ostrich (Petise), may not be well adapted, and thus perish out; or, on

the other hand, like Orpheus [a Galapagos bird], being favourable, many

might be produced. This requires [the] principle that the permanent

variations produced by confined breeding and changing circumstances are

continued and produced according to the adaptation of such circumstance,

and therefore that death of species is a consequence (contrary to what

would appear from America) of non-adaptation of circumstances."

The first part of the next extract has a similar bearing. The end of the

passage is of much interest, as showing that he had at this early date

visions of the far-reaching character of the theory of evolution:--

"With belief of transmutation and geographical grouping, we are lead to

endeavour to discover CAUSES of change; the manner of adaptation (wish

of parents??), instinct and structure becomes full of speculation and

lines of observation. View of generation being condensation (I imagine

him to mean that each generation is "condensed" to a small number of

the best organized individuals.) test of highest organisation

intelligible...My theory would give zest to recent and fossil

comparative anatomy; it would lead to the study of instincts, heredity,

and mind-heredity, whole [of] metaphysics.

"It would lead to closest examination of hybridity and generation,

causes of change in order to know what we have come from and to what we

tend--to what circumstances favour crossing and what prevents it--this,

and direct examination of direct passages of structure in species, might

lead to laws of change, which would then be [the] main object of study,

to guide our speculations."

The following two extracts have a similar interest; the second is

especially interesting, as it contains the germ of concluding sentence

of the 'Origin of Species': ('Origin of Species' (1st edition), page

490:-- "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several

powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one;

and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed

law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful

and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.")--

"Before the attraction of gravity discovered it might have been said it

was as great a difficulty to account for the movement of all [planets]

by one law, as to account for each separate one; so to say that all

mammalia were born from one stock, and since distributed by such means

as we can recognise, may be thought to explain nothing.

"Astronomers might formerly have said that God fore-ordered each planet

to move in its particular destiny. In the same manner God orders each

animal created with certain forms in certain countries, but how much

more simple and sublime [a] power--let attraction act according to

certain law, such are inevitable consequences--let animals be created,

then by the fixed laws of generation, such will be their successors.

"Let the powers of transportal be such, and so will be the forms of one

country to another--let geological changes go at such a rate, so will be

the number and distribution of the species!!"

The three next extracts are of miscellaneous interest:--

"When one sees nipple on man's breast, one does not say some use, but

sex not having been determined--so with useless wings under elytra of

beetles--born from beetles with wings, and modified--if simple creation

merely, would have been born without them."

"In a decreasing population at any one moment fewer closely related

(few species of genera); ultimately few genera (for otherwise the

relationship would converge sooner), and lastly, perhaps, some one

single one. Will not this account for the odd genera with few species

which stand between great groups, which we are bound to consider the

increasing ones?"

The last extract which I shall quote gives the germ of his theory of

the relation between alpine plants in various parts of the world, in the

publication of which he was forestalled by E. Forbes (see volume i.

page 72). He says, in the 1837 note-book, that alpine plants, "formerly

descended lower, therefore [they are] species of lower genera altered,

or northern plants."

When we turn to the Sketch of his theory, written in 1844 (still

therefore before the second edition of the 'Journal' was completed), we

find an enormous advance made on the note-book of 1837. The Sketch is

an fact a surprisingly complete presentation of the argument afterwards

familiar to us in the 'Origin of Species.' There is some obscurity as to

the date of the short Sketch which formed the basis of the 1844 Essay.

We know from his own words (volume i., page 68), that it was in June

1842 that he first wrote out a short sketch of his views. (This version

I cannot find, and it was probably destroyed, like so much of his MS.,

after it had been enlarged and re-copied in 1844.) This statement is

given with so much circumstance that it is almost impossible to suppose

that it contains an error of date. It agrees also with the following

extract from his Diary.

1842. May 18th. Went to Maer.

"June 15th to Shrewsbury, and on 18th to Capel Curig. During my stay at

Maer and Shrewsbury (five years after commencement) wrote pencil-sketch

of species theory."

Again in the introduction to the 'Origin,' page 1, he writes, "after

an interval of five years' work" [from 1837, i.e. in 1842], "I allowed

myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes."

Nevertheless in the letter signed by Sir C. Lyell and Sir J.D. Hooker,

which serves as an introduction to the joint paper of Messrs. C. Darwin

and A. Wallace on the 'Tendency of Species to form Varieties,' ('Linn.

Soc. Journal,' 1858, page 45.) the essay of 1844 (extracts from which

form part of the paper) is said to have been "sketched in 1839, and

copied in 1844." This statement is obviously made on the authority of

a note written in my father's hand across the Table of Contents of the

1844 Essay. It is to the following effect: "This was sketched in 1839,

and copied out in full, as here written and read by you in 1844." I

conclude that this note was added in 1858, when the MS. was sent to Sir

J.D. Hooker (see Letter of June 29, 1858, page 476). There is also some

further evidence on this side of the question. Writing to Mr. Wallace

(January 25, 1859) my father says:-- "Every one whom I have seen

has thought your paper very well written and interesting. It puts my

extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty years ago!), which I must say

in apology were never for an instant intended for publication; into the

shade." The statement that the earliest sketch was written in 1839 has

been frequently made in biographical notices of my father, no doubt

on the authority of the 'Linnean Journal,' but it must, I think, be

considered as erroneous. The error may possibly have arisen in this way.

In writing on the Table of Contents of the 1844 MS. that it was sketched

in 1839, I think my father may have intended to imply that the framework

of the theory was clearly thought out by him at that date. In the

Autobiography he speaks of the time, "about 1839, when the theory was

clearly conceived," meaning, no doubt, the end of 1838 and beginning of

1839, when the reading of Malthus had given him the key to the idea of

natural selection. But this explanation does not apply to the letter to

Mr. Wallace; and with regard to the passage (My father certainly saw the

proofs of the paper, for he added a foot-note apologising for the style

of the extracts, on the ground that the "work was never intended for

publication.") in the 'Linnean Journal' it is difficult to understand

how it should have been allowed to remain as it now stands, conveying,

as it clearly does, the impression that 1839 was the date of his

earliest written sketch.

The sketch of 1844 is written in a clerk's hand, in two hundred and

thirty-one pages folio, blank leaves being alternated with the MS.

with a view to amplification. The text has been revised and corrected,

criticisms being pencilled by himself on the margin. It is divided into

two parts: I. "On the variation of Organic Beings under Domestication

and in their Natural State." II. "On the Evidence favourable and opposed

to the view that Species are naturally formed races descended from

common Stocks." The first part contains the main argument of the 'Origin

of Species.' It is founded, as is the argument of that work, on the

study of domestic animals, and both the Sketch and the 'Origin' open

with a chapter on variation under domestication and on artificial

selection. This is followed, in both essays, by discussions on variation

under nature, on natural selection, and on the struggle for life. Here,

any close resemblance between the two essays with regard to arrangement

ceases. Chapter III. of the Sketch, which concludes the first part,

treats of the variations which occur in the instincts and habits of

animals, and thus corresponds to some extent with Chapter VII. of the

'Origin' (1st edition). It thus forms a complement to the chapters which

deal with variation in structure. It seems to have been placed thus

early in the Essay to prevent the hasty rejection of the whole theory by

a reader to whom the idea of natural selection acting on instincts might

seem impossible. This is the more probable, as the Chapter on Instinct

in the 'Origin' is specially mentioned (Introduction, page 5) as one of

the "most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory." Moreover the