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

LETTERS, 1843-1856.

[The history of my father's life is told more completely in his

correspondence with Sir J.D. Hooker than in any other series of letters;

and this is especially true of the history of the growth of the 'Origin

of Species.' This, therefore, seems an appropriate place for the

following notes, which Sir Joseph Hooker has kindly given me. They

give, moreover, an interesting picture of his early friendship with my

father:--

"My first meeting with Mr. Darwin was in 1839, in Trafalgar Square. I

was walking with an officer who had been his shipmate for a short time

in the "Beagle" seven years before, but who had not, I believe, since

met him. I was introduced; the interview was of course brief, and the

memory of him that I carried away and still retain was that of a rather

tall and rather broad-shouldered man, with a slight stoop, an agreeable

and animated expression when talking, beetle brows, and a hollow

but mellow voice; and that his greeting of his old acquaintance was

sailor-like--that is, delightfully frank and cordial. I observed him

well, for I was already aware of his attainments and labours, derived

from having read various proof-sheets of his then unpublished 'Journal.'

These had been submitted to Mr. (afterwards Sir Charles) Lyell by Mr.

Darwin, and by him sent to his father, Ch. Lyell, Esq., of Kinnordy, who

(being a very old friend of my father and taking a kind interest in my

projected career as a naturalist) had allowed me to peruse them. At

this time I was hurrying on my studies, so as to take my degree before

volunteering to accompany Sir James Ross in the Antarctic Expedition,

which had just been determined on by the Admiralty; and so pressed for

time was I, that I used to sleep with the sheets of the 'Journal'

under my pillow, that I might read them between waking and rising. They

impressed me profoundly, I might say despairingly, with the variety of

acquirements, mental and physical, required in a naturalist who should

follow in Darwin's footsteps, whilst they stimulated me to enthusiasm in

the desire to travel and observe.

"It has been a permanent source of happiness to me that I knew so much

of Mr. Darwin's scientific work so many years before that intimacy began

which ripened into feelings as near to those of reverence for his life,

works, and character as is reasonable and proper. It only remains to

add to this little episode that I received a copy of the 'Journal'

complete,--a gift from Mr. Lyell,--a few days before leaving England.

"Very soon after the return of the Antarctic Expedition my

correspondence with Mr. Darwin began (December, 1843) by his sending me

a long letter, warmly congratulating me on my return to my family

and friends, and expressing a wish to hear more of the results of the

expedition, of which he had derived some knowledge from private letters

of my own (written to or communicated through Mr. Lyell). Then, plunging

at once into scientific matters, he directed my attention to the

importance of correlating the Fuegian Flora with that of the Cordillera

and of Europe, and invited me to study the botanical collections which

he had made in the Galapagos Islands, as well as his Patagonian and

Fuegian plants.

"This led to me sending him an outline of the conclusions I had formed

regarding the distribution of plants in the southern regions, and the

necessity of assuming the destruction of considerable areas of land

to account for the relations of the flora of the so-called Antarctic

Islands. I do not suppose that any of these ideas were new to him, but

they led to an animated and lengthy correspondence full of instruction."

Here follows the letter (1843) to Sir J.D. Hooker above referred to.]

My dear Sir,

I had hoped before this time to have had the pleasure of seeing you

and congratulating you on your safe return from your long and glorious

voyage. But as I seldom go to London, we may not yet meet for some

time--without you are led to attend the Geological Meetings.

I am anxious to know what you intend doing with all your materials--I

had so much pleasure in reading parts of some of your letters, that I

shall be very sorry if I, as one of the public, have no opportunity of

reading a good deal more. I suppose you are very busy now and full of

enjoyment: how well I remember the happiness of my first few months of

England--it was worth all the discomforts of many a gale! But I have run

from the subject, which made me write, of expressing my pleasure that

Henslow (as he informed me a few days since by letter) has sent to you

my small collection of plants. You cannot think how much pleased I am,

as I feared they would have been all lost, and few as they are, they

cost me a good deal of trouble. There are a very few notes, which I

believe Henslow has got, describing the habitats, etc., of some few of

the more remarkable plants. I paid particular attention to the Alpine

flowers of Tierra del Fuego, and I am sure I got every plant which was

in flower in Patagonia at the seasons when we were there. I have long

thought that some general sketch of the Flora of the point of land,

stretching so far into the southern seas, would be very curious. Do make

comparative remarks on the species allied to the European species, for

the advantage of botanical ignoramuses like myself. It has often struck

me as a curious point to find out, whether there are many European

genera in Tierra del Fuego which are not found along the ridge of the

Cordillera; the separation in such case would be so enormous. Do

point out in any sketch you draw up, what genera are American and what

European, and how great the differences of the species are, when the

genera are European, for the sake of the ignoramuses.

I hope Henslow will send you my Galapagos plants (about which Humboldt

even expressed to me considerable curiosity)--I took much pains in

collecting all I could. A Flora of this archipelago would, I suspect,

offer a nearly parallel case to that of St. Helena, which has so long

excited interest. Pray excuse this long rambling note, and believe me,

my dear sir, yours very sincerely,

C. DARWIN.

Will you be so good as to present my respectful compliments to Sir W.

Hooker.

[Referring to Sir J.D. Hooker's work on the Galapagos Flora, my father

wrote in 1846:

"I cannot tell you how delighted and astonished I am at the results

of your examination; how wonderfully they support my assertion on the

differences in the animals of the different islands, about which I have

always been fearful."

Again he wrote (1849):--

"I received a few weeks ago your Galapagos papers (These papers include

the results of Sir J.D. Hooker's examination of my father's Galapagos

plants, and were published by the Linnean Society in 1849.), and I have

read them since being here. I really cannot express too strongly my

admiration of the geographical discussion: to my judgment it is a

perfect model of what such a paper should be; it took me four days to

read and think over. How interesting the Flora of the Sandwich Islands

appears to be, how I wish there were materials for you to treat its

flora as you have done the Galapagos. In the Systematic paper I was

rather disappointed in not finding general remarks on affinities,

structures, etc., such as you often give in conversation, and such as

De Candolle and St. Hilaire introduced in almost all their papers, and

which make them interesting even to a non-Botanist."

"Very soon afterwards [continues Sir J.D. Hooker] in a letter dated

January 1844, the subject of the 'Origin of Species' was brought forward

by him, and I believe that I was the first to whom he communicated

his then new ideas on the subject, and which being of interest as

a contribution to the history of Evolution, I here copy from his

letter":--]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [January 11th, 1844.]

Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now

ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know

no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck

with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc. etc., and with

the character of the American fossil mammifers, etc. etc., that I

determined to collect blindly every sort of fact, which could bear

any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and

horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last

gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to

the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing

a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a

"tendency to progression," "adaptations from the slow willing of

animals," etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different

from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have

found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become

exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to

yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I

should, five years ago, have thought so...

[The following letter written on February 23, 1844, shows that the

acquaintanceship with Sir J.D. Hooker was then fast ripening into

friendship. The letter is chiefly of interest as showing the sort of

problems then occupying my father's mind:]

Dear Hooker,

I hope you will excuse the freedom of my address, but I feel that as

co-circum-wanderers and as fellow labourers (though myself a very weak

one) we may throw aside some of the old-world formality...I have just

finished a little volume on the volcanic islands which we visited. I do

not know how far you care for dry simple geology, but I hope you will

let me send you a copy. I suppose I can send it from London by common

coach conveyance.

...I am going to ask you some MORE questions, though I daresay, without

asking them, I shall see answers in your work, when published, which

will be quite time enough for my purposes. First for the Galapagos, you

will see in my Journal, that the Birds, though peculiar species, have a

most obvious S. American aspect: I have just ascertained the same thing

holds good with the sea-shells. It is so with those plants which are

peculiar to this archipelago; you state that their numerical proportions

are continental (is not this a very curious fact?) but are they related

in forms to S. America. Do you know of any other case of an archipelago,

with the separate islands possessing distinct representative species?

I have always intended (but have not yet done so) to examine Webb

and Berthelot on the Canary Islands for this object. Talking with

Mr. Bentham, he told me that the separate islands of the Sandwich

Archipelago possessed distinct representative species of the same genera

of Labiatae: would not this be worth your enquiry? How is it with the

Azores; to be sure the heavy western gales would tend to diffuse the

same species over that group.

I hope you will (I dare say my hope is quite superfluous) attend to this

general kind of affinity in isolated islands, though I suppose it is

more difficult to perceive this sort of relation in plants, than in

birds or quadrupeds, the groups of which are, I fancy, rather more

confined. Can St. Helena be classed, though remotely, either with Africa

or S. America? From some facts, which I have collected, I have been led

to conclude that the fauna of mountains are EITHER remarkably similar

(sometimes in the presence of the same species and at other times

of same genera), OR that they are remarkably dissimilar; and it has

occurred to me that possibly part of this peculiarity of the St. Helena

and Galapagos floras may be attributed to a great part of these two

Floras being mountain Floras. I fear my notes will hardly serve to

distinguish much of the habitats of the Galapagos plants, but they may

in some cases; most, if not all, of the green, leafy plants come from

the summits of the islands, and the thin brown leafless plants come from

the lower arid parts: would you be so kind as to bear this remark in

mind, when examining my collection.

I will trouble you with only one other question. In discussion with Mr.

Gould, I found that in most of the genera of birds which range over the

whole or greater part of the world, the individual species have wider

ranges, thus the Owl is mundane, and many of the species have very wide

ranges. So I believe it is with land and fresh-water shells--and I might

adduce other cases. Is it not so with Cryptogamic plants; have not most

of the species wide ranges, in those genera which are mundane? I do not

suppose that the converse holds, viz.--that when a species has a

wide range, its genus also ranges wide. Will you so far oblige me by

occasionally thinking over this? It would cost me vast trouble to get a

list of mundane phanerogamic genera and then search how far the species

of these genera are apt to range wide in their several countries; but

you might occasionally, in the course of your pursuits, just bear this

in mind, though perhaps the point may long since have occurred to you

or other Botanists. Geology is bringing to light interesting facts,

concerning the ranges of shells; I think it is pretty well established,

that according as the geographical range of a species is wide, so is

its persistence and duration in time. I hope you will try to grudge as

little as you can the trouble of my letters, and pray believe me very

truly yours,

C. DARWIN.

P.S. I should feel extremely obliged for your kind offer of the sketch

of Humboldt; I venerate him, and after having had the pleasure of

conversing with him in London, I shall still more like to have any

portrait of him.

[What follows is quoted from Sir J. Hooker's notes. "The next act in the

drama of our lives opens with personal intercourse. This began with an

invitation to breakfast with him at his brother's (Erasmus Darwin's)

house in Park Street; which was shortly afterwards followed by an

invitation to Down to meet a few brother Naturalists. In the short

intervals of good health that followed the long illnesses which

oftentimes rendered life a burthen to him, between 1844 and 1847, I had

many such invitations, and delightful they were. A more hospitable and

more attractive home under every point of view could not be imagined--of

Society there were most often Dr. Falconer, Edward Forbes, Professor

Bell, and Mr. Waterhouse--there were long walks, romps with the children

on hands and knees, music that haunts me still. Darwin's own hearty

manner, hollow laugh, and thorough enjoyment of home life with friends;

strolls with him all together, and interviews with us one by one in

his study, to discuss questions in any branch of biological or physical

knowledge that we had followed; and which I at any rate always left with

the feeling that I had imparted nothing and carried away more than

I could stagger under. Latterly, as his health became more seriously

affected, I was for days and weeks the only visitor, bringing my work

with me and enjoying his society as opportunity offered. It was an

established rule that he every day pumped me, as he called it, for half

an hour or so after breakfast in his study, when he first brought out

a heap of slips with questions botanical, geographical, etc., for me to

answer, and concluded by telling me of the progress he had made in his

own work, asking my opinion on various points. I saw no more of him till

about noon, when I heard his mellow ringing voice calling my name under

my window--this was to join him in his daily forenoon walk round the

sand-walk. On joining him I found him in a rough grey shooting-coat in

summer, and thick cape over his shoulders in winter, and a stout staff

in his hand; away we trudged through the garden, where there was always

some experiment to visit, and on to the sand-walk, round which a fixed

number of turns were taken, during which our conversation usually ran

on foreign lands and seas, old friends, old books, and things far off to

both mind and eye.

"In the afternoon there was another such walk, after which he again

retired till dinner if well enough to join the family; if not, he

generally managed to appear in the drawing-room, where seated in his

high chair, with his feet in enormous carpet shoes, supported on a high

stool--he enjoyed the music or conversation of his family."

Here follows a series of letters illustrating the growth of my father's

views, and the nature of his work during this period.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1844].

...The conclusion, which I have come at is, that those areas, in which

species are most numerous, have oftenest been divided and isolated from

other areas, united and again divided; a process implying antiquity and

some changes in the external conditions. This will justly sound very

hypothetical. I cannot give my reasons in detail; but the most general

conclusion, which the geographical distribution of all organic beings,

appears to me to indicate, is that isolation is the chief concomitant or

cause of the appearance of NEW forms (I well know there are some staring

exceptions). Secondly, from seeing how often the plants and animals

swarm in a country, when introduced into it, and from seeing what a vast

number of plants will live, for instance in England, if kept FREE FROM

WEEDS, AND NATIVE PLANTS, I have been led to consider that the spreading

and number of the organic beings of any country depend less on its

external features, than on the number of forms, which have been there

originally created or produced. I much doubt whether you will find it

possible to explain the number of forms by proportional differences of

exposure; and I cannot doubt if half the species in any country were

destroyed or had not been created, yet that country would appear to us

fully peopled. With respect to original creation or production of new

forms, I have said that isolation appears the chief element. Hence,

with respect to terrestrial productions, a tract of country, which had

oftenest within the late geological periods subsided and been converted

into islands, and reunited, I should expect to contain most forms.

But such speculations are amusing only to one self, and in this case

useless, as they do not show any direct line of observation: if I had

seen how hypothetical [is] the little, which I have unclearly written, I

would not have troubled you with the reading of it. Believe me,--at last

not hypothetically,

Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 1844.

...I forget my last letter, but it must have been a very silly one, as

it seems I gave my notion of the number of species being in great degree

governed by the degree to which the area had been often isolated and

divided; I must have been cracked to have written it, for I have no

evidence, without a person be willing to admit all my views, and then

it does follow; but in my most sanguine moments, all I expect, is that

I shall be able to show even to sound Naturalists, that there are two

sides to the question of the immutability of species;--that facts can be

viewed and grouped under the notion of allied species having descended

from common stocks. With respect to books on this subject, I do not know

of any systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is veritable rubbish;

but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, etc., on the view of the

immutability. Agassiz lately has brought the strongest argument in

favour of immutability. Isidore G. St. Hilaire has written some good

Essays, tending towards the mutability-side, in the 'Suites a Buffon,'

entitled "Zoolog. Generale." Is it not strange that the author, of

such a book as the 'Animaux sans Vertebres,' should have written that

insects, which never see their eggs, should WILL (and plants, their

seeds) to be of particular forms, so as to become attached to particular

objects. The other, common (specially Germanic) notion is hardly less

absurd, viz. that climate, food, etc., should make a Pediculus formed to

climb hair, or wood-pecker, to climb trees. I believe all these absurd

views arise, from no one having, as far as I know, approached the

subject on the side of variation under domestication, and having studied

all that is known about domestication. I was very glad to hear your

criticism on island-floras and on non-diffusion of plants: the subject

is too long for a letter: I could defend myself to some considerable

extent, but I doubt whether successfully in your eyes, or indeed in my

own...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [July, 1844].

...I am now reading a wonderful book for facts on variation--Bronn,

'Geschichte der Natur.' It is stiff German: it forestalls me, sometimes

I think delightfully, and sometimes cruelly. You will be ten times

hereafter more horrified at me than at H. Watson. I hate arguments from

results, but on my views of descent, really Natural History becomes

a sublimely grand result-giving subject (now you may quiz me for so

foolish an escape of mouth)...I must leave this letter till to-morrow,

for I am tired; but I so enjoy writing to you, that I must inflict a

little more on you.

Have you any good evidence for absence of insects in small islands? I

found thirteen species in Keeling Atoll. Flies are good fertilizers,

and I have seen a microscopic Thrips and a Cecidomya take flight from

a flower in the direction of another with pollen adhering to them. In

Arctic countries a bee seems to go as far N. as any flower...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury [September, 1845].

My dear Hooker,

I write a line to say that Cosmos (A translation of Humboldt's

'Kosmos.') arrived quite safely [N.B. One sheet came loose in Part I.],

and to thank you for your nice note. I have just begun the introduction,

and groan over the style, which in such parts is full half the battle.

How true many of the remarks are (i.e. as far as I can understand the

wretched English) on the scenery; it is an exact expression of one's own

thoughts.

I wish I ever had any books to lend you in return for the many you have

lent me...

All of what you kindly say about my species work does not alter one

iota my long self-acknowledged presumption in accumulating facts and

speculating on the subject of variation, without having worked out my

due share of species. But now for nine years it has been anyhow the

greatest amusement to me.

Farewell, my dear Hooker, I grieve more than you can well believe, over

our prospect of so seldom meeting.

I have never perceived but one fault in you, and that you have

grievously, viz. modesty; you form an exception to Sydney Smith's

aphorism, that merit and modesty have no other connection, except in

their first letter.

Farewell, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down, October 12th, [1845].

My dear Jenyns,

Thanks for your note. I am sorry to say I have not even the tail-end

of a fact in English Zoology to communicate. I have found that even

trifling observations require, in my case, some leisure and energy, both

of which ingredients I have had none to spare, as writing my Geology

thoroughly expends both. I had always thought that I would keep a

journal and record everything, but in the way I now live I find I

observe nothing to record. Looking after my garden and trees, and

occasionally a very little walk in an idle frame of mind, fills up every

afternoon in the same manner. I am surprised that with all your parish

affairs, you have had time to do all that which you have done. I shall

be very glad to see your little work (Mr. Jenyns' 'Observations in

Natural History.' It is prefaced by an Introduction on "Habits of

observing as connected with the study of Natural History," and followed

by a "Calendar of Periodic Phenomena in Natural History," with "Remarks

on the importance of such Registers." My father seems to be alluding to

this Register in the P.S. to the letter dated October 17, 1846.) (and

proud should I have been if I could have added a single fact to it).

My work on the species question has impressed me very forcibly with

the importance of all such works as your intended one, containing what

people are pleased generally to call trifling facts. These are the facts

which make one understand the working or economy of nature. There is

one subject, on which I am very curious, and which perhaps you may throw

some light on, if you have ever thought on it; namely, what are the

checks and what the periods of life,--by which the increase of any given

species is limited. Just calculate the increase of any bird, if you

assume that only half the young are reared, and these breed: within the

NATURAL (i.e., if free from accidents) life of the parents the number

of individuals will become enormous, and I have been much surprised to

think how great destruction MUST annually or occasionally be falling on

every species, yet the means and period of such destruction is scarcely

perceived by us.

I have continued steadily reading and collecting facts on variation of

domestic animals and plants, and on the question of what are species.

I have a grand body of facts, and I think I can draw some sound

conclusions. The general conclusions at which I have slowly been driven

from a directly opposite conviction, is that species are mutable, and

that allied species are co-descendants from common stocks. I know how

much I open myself to reproach for such a conclusion, but I have at

least honestly and deliberately come to it. I shall not publish on

this subject for several years. At present I am on the Geology of

South America. I hope to pick up from your book some facts on

slight variations in structure or instincts in the animals of your

acquaintance.

Believe me, ever yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS (REV. L. BLOMEFIELD). Down, [1845?].

My dear Jenyns,

I am very much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken in having

written me so long a note. The question of where, when, and how

the check to the increase of a given species falls appears to me

particularly interesting, and our difficulty in answering it shows how

really ignorant we are of the lives and habits of our most familiar

species. I was aware of the bare fact of old birds driving away their

young, but had never thought of the effect you so clearly point out, of

local gaps in number being thus immediately filled up. But the original

difficulty remains; for if your farmers had not killed your sparrows

and rooks, what would have become of those which now immigrate into your

parish? in the middle of England one is too far distant from the natural

limits of the rook and sparrow to suppose that the young are thus far

expelled from Cambridgeshire. The check must fall heavily at some time

of each species' life; for, if one calculates that only half the progeny

are reared and bred, how enormous is the increase! One has, however, no

business to feel so much surprise at one's ignorance, when one knows how

impossible it is without statistics to conjecture the duration of life

and percentage of deaths to births in mankind. If it could be shown that

apparently the birds of passage WHICH BREED HERE and increase, return in

the succeeding years in about the same number, whereas those that come

here for their winter and non-breeding season annually, come here with

the same numbers, but return with greatly decreased numbers, one

would know (as indeed seems probable) that the check fell chiefly on

full-grown birds in the winter season, and not on the eggs and very

young birds, which has appeared to me often the most probable period. If

at any time any remarks on this subject should occur to you, I should be

most grateful for the benefit of them.

With respect to my far distant work on species, I must have expressed

myself with singular inaccuracy if I led you to suppose that I meant

to say that my conclusions were inevitable. They have become so, after

years of weighing puzzles, to myself ALONE; but in my wildest day-dream,

I never expect more than to be able to show that there are two sides to

the question of the immutability of species, i.e. whether species are

DIRECTLY created or by intermediate laws (as with the life and death

of individuals). I did not approach the subject on the side of the

difficulty in determining what are species and what are varieties, but

(though, why I should give you such a history of my doings it would be

hard to say) from such facts as the relationship between the living

and extinct mammifers in South America, and between those living on the

Continent and on adjoining islands, such as the Galapagos. It occured

to me that a collection of all such analogous facts would throw light

either for or against the view of related species being co-descendants

from a common stock. A long searching amongst agricultural and

horticultural books and people makes me believe (I well know how

absurdly presumptuous this must appear) that I see the way in which new

varieties become exquisitely adapted to the external conditions of life

and to other surrounding beings. I am a bold man to lay myself open

to being thought a complete fool, and a most deliberate one. From the

nature of the grounds which make me believe that species are mutable in

form, these grounds cannot be restricted to the closest-allied species;

but how far they extend I cannot tell, as my reasons fall away by

degrees, when applied to species more and more remote from each other.

Pray do not think that I am so blind as not to see that there are

numerous immense difficulties in my notions, but they appear to me less

than on the common view. I have drawn up a sketch and had it copied (in

200 pages) of my conclusions; and if I thought at some future time that

you would think it worth reading, I should, of course, be most thankful

to have the criticism of so competent a critic. Excuse this very long

and egotistical and ill-written letter, which by your remarks you had

led me into, and believe me,

Yours very truly, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down, October 17th, 1846.

Dear Jenyns,

I have taken a most ungrateful length of time in thanking you for your

very kind present of your 'Observations.' But I happened to have had in

hand several other books, and have finished yours only a few days ago.

I found it very pleasant reading, and many of your facts interested me

much. I think I was more interested, which is odd, with your notes on

some of the lower animals than on the higher ones. The introduction

struck me as very good; but this is what I expected, for I well remember

being quite delighted with a preliminary essay to the first number of

the 'Annals of Natural History.' I missed one discussion, and think

myself ill-used, for I remember your saying you would make some remarks

on the weather and barometer, as a guide for the ignorant in prediction.

I had also hoped to have perhaps met with some remarks on the amount of

variation in our common species. Andrew Smith once declared he would get

some hundreds of specimens of larks and sparrows from all parts of Great

Britain, and see whether, with finest measurements, he could detect any

proportional variations in beaks or limbs, etc. This point interests me

from having lately been skimming over the absurdly opposite conclusions

of Gloger and Brehm; the one making half-a-dozen species out of every

common bird, and the other turning so many reputed species into one.

Have you ever done anything of this kind, or have you ever studied

Gloger's or Brehm's works? I was interested in your account of the

martins, for I had just before been utterly perplexed by noticing just

such a proceeding as you describe: I counted seven, one day lately,

visiting a single nest and sticking dirt on the adjoining wall. I may

mention that I once saw some squirrels eagerly splitting those little

semi-transparent spherical galls on the back of oak-leaves for the

maggot within; so that they are insectivorous. A Cychrus rostratus once

squirted into my eyes and gave me extreme pain; and I must tell you what

happened to me on the banks of the Cam, in my early entomological days:

under a piece of bark I found two Carabi (I forget which), and caught

one in each hand, when lo and behold I saw a sacred Panagaeus crux

major! I could not bear to give up either of my Carabi, and to lose

Panagaeus was out of the question; so that in despair I gently seized

one of the Carabi between my teeth, when to my unspeakable disgust and

pain the little inconsiderate beast squirted his acid down my throat,

and I lost both Carabi and Panagaeus! I was quite astonished to hear of

a terrestrial Planaria; for about a year or two ago I described in the

'Annals of Natural History' several beautifully coloured terrestrial

species of the Southern Hemisphere, and thought it quite a new fact.

By the way, you speak of a sheep with a broken leg not having flukes:

I have heard my father aver that a fever, or any SERIOUS ACCIDENT, as

a broken limb, will cause in a man all the intestinal worms to be

evacuated. Might not this possibly have been the case with the flukes in

their early state?

I hope you were none the worse for Southampton (The meeting of the

British Association.); I wish I had seen you looking rather fatter. I

enjoyed my week extremely, and it did me good. I missed you the last few

days, and we never managed to see much of each other; but there were so

many people there, that I for one hardly saw anything of any one. Once

again I thank you very cordially for your kind present, and the pleasure

it has given me, and believe me,

Ever most truly yours, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--I have quite forgotten to say how greatly interested I was with

your discussion on the statistics of animals: when will Natural History

be so perfect that such points as you discuss will be perfectly known

about any one animal?

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Malvern, June 13 [1849].

...At last I am going to press with a small poor first-fruit of my

confounded Cirripedia, viz. the fossil pedunculate cirripedia. You ask

what effect studying species has had on my variation theories; I do not

think much--I have felt some difficulties more. On the other hand,

I have been struck (and probably unfairly from the class) with the

variability of every part in some slight degree of every species. When

the same organ is RIGOROUSLY compared in many individuals, I always find

some slight variability, and consequently that the diagnosis of species

from minute differences is always dangerous. I had thought the same

parts of the same species more resemble (than they do anyhow in

Cirripedia) objects cast in the same mould. Systematic work would be

easy were it not for this confounded variation, which, however, is

pleasant to me as a speculatist, though odious to me as a systematist.

Your remarks on the distinctness (so unpleasant to me) of the Himalayan

Rubi, willows, etc., compared with those of northern [Europe?], etc.,

are very interesting; if my rude species-sketch had any SMALL share in

leading you to these observations, it has already done good and ample

service, and may lay its bones in the earth in peace. I never heard

anything so strange as Falconer's neglect of your letters; I am

extremely glad you are cordial with him again, though it must have cost

you an effort. Falconer is a man one must love...May you prosper in

every way, my dear Hooker.

Your affectionate friend, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Wednesday [September, n.d.].

...Many thanks for your letter received yesterday, which, as always,

set me thinking: I laughed at your attack at my stinginess in changes of

level towards Forbes (Edward Forbes, 1815-1854, born in the Isle of Man.

His best known work was his Report on the distribution of marine animals

at different depths in the Mediterranean. An important memoir of his

is referred to in my father's 'Autobiography.' He held successively the

posts of Curator to the Geological Society's Museum, and Professor of

Natural History in the Museum of Practical Geology; shortly before he

died he was appointed Professor of Natural History in the University

of Edinburgh. He seems to have impressed his contemporaries as a man of

strikingly versatile and vigorous mind. The above allusion to changes of

level refers to Forbes's tendency to explain the facts of geographical

distribution by means of an active geological imagination.), being so

liberal towards myself; but I must maintain, that I have never let down

or upheaved our mother-earth's surface, for the sake of explaining any

one phenomenon, and I trust I have very seldom done so without some

distinct evidence. So I must still think it a bold step (perhaps a

very true one) to sink into the depths of ocean, within the period of

existing species, so large a tract of surface. But there is no amount or

extent of change of level, which I am not fully prepared to admit, but

I must say I should like better evidence, than the identity of a few

plants, which POSSIBLY (I do not say probably) might have been otherwise

transported. Particular thanks for your attempt to get me a copy of

'L'Espece' (Probably Godron's essay, published by the Academy of Nancy

in 1848-49, and afterwards as a separate book in 1859.), and almost

equal thanks for your criticisms on him: I rather misdoubted him, and

felt not much inclined to take as gospel his facts. I find this one of

my greatest difficulties with foreign authors, viz. judging of their

credibility. How painfully (to me) true is your remark, that no one has

hardly a right to examine the question of species who has not minutely

described many. I was, however, pleased to hear from Owen (who is

vehemently opposed to any mutability in species), that he thought it was

a very fair subject, and that there was a mass of facts to be brought to

bear on the question, not hitherto collected. My only comfort is (as I

mean to attempt the subject), that I have dabbled in several branches

of Natural History, and seen good specific men work out my species, and

know something of geology (an indispensable union); and though I shall

get more kicks than half-pennies, I will, life serving, attempt my

work. Lamarck is the only exception, that I can think of, of an accurate

describer of species at least in the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has

disbelieved in permanent species, but he in his absurd though clever

work has done the subject harm, as has Mr. Vestiges, and, as (some

future loose naturalist attempting the same speculations will perhaps

say) has Mr. D...

C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 25th [1853].

My dear Hooker,

I have read your paper with great interest; it seems all very clear, and

will form an admirable introduction to the New Zealand Flora, or to any

Flora in the world. How few generalizers there are among systematists;

I really suspect there is something absolutely opposed to each other

and hostile in the two frames of mind required for systematising and

reasoning on large collections of facts. Many of your arguments appear

to me very well put, and, as far as my experience goes, the candid

way in which you discuss the subject is unique. The whole will be very

useful to me whenever I undertake my volume, though parts take the wind

very completely out of my sails; it will be all nuts to me...for I have

for some time determined to give the arguments on BOTH sides (as far as

I could), instead of arguing on the mutability side alone.

In my own Cirripedial work (by the way, thank you for the dose of soft

solder; it does one--or at least me--a great deal of good)--in my own

work I have not felt conscious that disbelieving in the mere PERMANENCE

of species has made much difference one way or the other; in some few

cases (if publishing avowedly on doctrine of non-permanence), I should

NOT have affixed names, and in some few cases should have affixed

names to remarkable varieties. Certainly I have felt it humiliating,

discussing and doubting, and examining over and over again, when in

my own mind the only doubt has been whether the form varied TO-DAY OR

YESTERDAY (not to put too fine a point on it, as Snagsby (In 'Bleak

House.') would say). After describing a set of forms as distinct

species, tearing up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that

up and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has

happened to me), I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what

sin I had committed to be so punished. But I must confess that perhaps

nearly the same thing would have happened to me on any scheme of work.

I am heartily glad to hear your Journal (Sir J.D. Hooker's 'Himalayan

Journal.') is so much advanced; how magnificently it seems to be

illustrated! An "Oriental Naturalist," with lots of imagination and not

too much regard to facts, is just the man to discuss species! I think

your title of 'A Journal of a Naturalist in the East' very good; but

whether "in the Himalaya" would not be better, I have doubted, for the

East sounds rather vague...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [1853].

My dear Hooker,

I have no remarks at all worth sending you, nor, indeed, was it likely

that I should, considering how perfect and elaborated an essay it is.

('New Zealand Flora,' 1853.) As far as my judgment goes, it is the most

important discussion on the points in question ever published. I can say

no more. I agree with almost everything you say; but I require much time

to digest an essay of such quality. It almost made me gloomy, partly

from feeling I could not answer some points which theoretically I should

have liked to have been different, and partly from seeing SO FAR BETTER

DONE than I COULD have done, discussions on some points which I had

intended to have taken up...

I much enjoyed the slaps you have given to the provincial

species-mongers. I wish I could have been of the slightest use: I have

been deeply interested by the whole essay, and congratulate you on

having produced a memoir which I believe will be memorable. I was deep

in it when your most considerate note arrived, begging me not to hurry.

I thank Mrs. Hooker and yourself most sincerely for your wish to see me.

I will not let another summer pass without seeing you at Kew, for indeed

I should enjoy it much...

You do me really more honour than I have any claim to, putting me in

after Lyell on ups and downs. In a year or two's time, when I shall be

at my species book (if I do not break down), I shall gnash my teeth and

abuse you for having put so many hostile facts so confoundedly well.

Ever yours affectionately, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 26th [1854].

My dear Hooker,

I had hoped that you would have had a little breathing-time after your

Journal, but this seems to be very far from the case; and I am the

more obliged (and somewhat contrite) for the long letter received this

morning, MOST juicy with news and MOST interesting to me in many ways. I

am very glad indeed to hear of the reforms, etc., in the Royal Society.

With respect to the Club (The Philosophical Club, to which my father was

elected (as Professor Bonney is good enough to inform me) on April 24,

1854. He resigned his membership in 1864. The Club was founded in 1847.

The number of members being limited to 47, it was proposed to christen

it "the Club of 47," but the name was never adopted. The nature of the

Club may be gathered from its first rule: "The purpose of the Club is to

promote as much as possible the scientific objects of the Royal Society;

to facilitate intercourse between those Fellows who are actively engaged

in cultivating the various branches of Natural Science, and who have

contributed to its progress; to increase the attendance at the evening

meetings, and to encourage the contribution and discussion of papers."

The Club met for dinner (at first) at 6, and the chair was to be quitted

at 8.15, it being expected that members would go to the Royal Society.

Of late years the dinner has been at 6.30, the Society meeting in the

afternoon.), I am deeply interested; only two or three days ago, I

was regretting to my wife, how I was letting drop and being dropped by

nearly all my acquaintances, and that I would endeavour to go oftener

to London; I was not then thinking of the Club, which, as far as any one

thing goes, would answer my exact object in keeping up old and making

some new acquaintances. I will therefore come up to London for every

(with rare exceptions) Club-day, and then my head, I think, will allow

me on an average to go to every other meeting. But it is grievous how

often any change knocks me up. I will further pledge myself, as I told

Lyell, to resign after a year, if I did not attend pretty often, so

that I should AT WORST encumber the Club temporarily. If you can get me

elected, I certainly shall be very much pleased. Very many thanks for

answers about Glaciers. I am very glad to hear of the second Edition (Of

the Himalayan Journal.) so very soon; but am not surprised, for I

have heard of several, in our small circle, reading it with very much

pleasure. I shall be curious to hear what Humboldt will say: it will, I

should think, delight him, and meet with more praise from him than any

other book of Travels, for I cannot remember one, which has so many

subjects in common with him. What a wonderful old fellow he is...By the

way, I hope, when you go to Hitcham, towards the end of May, you will be

forced to have some rest. I am grieved to hear that all the bad symptoms

have not left Henslow; it is so strange and new to feel any uneasiness

about his health. I am particularly obliged to you for sending me

Asa Gray's letter; how very pleasantly he writes. To see his and your

caution on the species-question ought to overwhelm me in confusion and

shame; it does make me feel deuced uncomfortable...It is delightful

to hear all that he says on Agassiz: how very singular it is that so

EMINENTLY clever a man, with such IMMENSE knowledge on many branches of

Natural History, should write as he does. Lyell told me that he was so

delighted with one of his (Agassiz) lectures on progressive development,

etc., etc., that he went to him afterwards and told him, "that it was so

delightful, that he could not help all the time wishing it was true." I

seldom see a Zoological paper from North America, without observing the

impress of Agassiz's doctrines--another proof, by the way, of how great

a man he is. I was pleased and surprised to see A. Gray's remarks on

crossing, obliterating varieties, on which, as you know, I have been

collecting facts for these dozen years. How awfully flat I shall feel,

if when I get my notes together on species, etc., etc., the whole thing

explodes like an empty puff-ball. Do not work yourself to death.

Ever yours most truly, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 5th [1854].

My dear Hooker,

I was delighted to get your note yesterday. I congratulate you very

heartily (On the award to him of the Royal Society's Medal.), and

whether you care much or little, I rejoice to see the highest scientific

judgment-court in Great Britain recognise your claims. I do hope Mrs.

Hooker is pleased, and E. desires me particularly to send her cordial

congratulations ...I pity you from the very bottom of my heart about

your after-dinner speech, which I fear I shall not hear. Without you

have a very much greater soul than I have (and I believe that you have),

you will find the medal a pleasant little stimulus, when work goes

badly, and one ruminates that all is vanity, it is pleasant to have some

tangible proof, that others have thought something of one's labours.

Good-bye my dear Hooker, I can assure [you] that we both most truly

enjoyed your and Mrs. Hooker's visit here. Farewell.

My dear Hooker, your sincere friend, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. March 7 [1855].

...I have just finished working well at Wollaston's (Thomas Vernon

Wollaston died (in his fifty-seventh year, as I believe) on January 4,

1878. His health forcing him in early manhood to winter in the south,

he devoted himself to a study of the Coleoptera of Madeira, the Cape

de Verdes, and St. Helena, whence he deduced evidence in support of the

belief in the submerged continent of 'Atlantis.' In an obituary notice

by Mr. Rye ('Nature,' 1878) he is described as working persistently

"upon a broad conception of the science to which he was devoted," while

being at the same time "accurate, elaborate, and precise ad punctum, and

naturally of a minutely critical habit." His first scientific paper was

written when he was an undergraduate at Jesus College, Cambridge. While

at the University, he was an Associate and afterwards a Member of the

Ray Club: this is a small society which still meets once a week, and

where the undergraduate members, or Associates, receive much kindly

encouragement from their elders.) 'Insecta Maderensia': it is an

ADMIRABLE work. There is a very curious point in the astounding

proportion of Coleoptera that are apterous; and I think I have guessed

the reason, viz., that powers of flight would be injurious to insects

inhabiting a confined locality, and expose them to be blown to the sea:

to test this, I find that the insects inhabiting the Dezerte Grande, a

quite small islet, would be still more exposed to this danger, and here

the proportion of apterous insects is even considerably greater than on

Madeira Proper. Wollaston speaks of Madeira and the other Archipelagoes

as being "sure and certain witnesses of Forbes' old continent," and of

course the Entomological world implicitly follows this view. But to my

eyes it would be difficult to imagine facts more opposed to such a

view. It is really disgusting and humiliating to see directly opposite

conclusions drawn from the same facts.

I have had some correspondence with Wollaston on this and other

subjects, and I find that he coolly assumes, (1) that formerly insects

possessed greater migratory powers than now, (2) that the old land was

SPECIALLY rich in centres of creation, (3) that the uniting land was

destroyed before the special creations had time to diffuse, and (4) that

the land was broken down before certain families and genera had time

to reach from Europe or Africa the points of land in question. Are not

these a jolly lot of assumptions? and yet I shall see for the next dozen

or score of years Wollaston quoted as proving the former existence of

poor Forbes' Atlantis.

I hope I have not wearied you, but I thought you would like to hear

about this book, which strikes me as EXCELLENT in its facts, and the

author a most nice and modest man.

Most truly yours, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, March 19th [1855].

My dear Fox,

How long it is since we have had any communication, and I really want to

hear how the world goes with you; but my immediate object is to ask you

to observe a point for me, and as I know now you are a very busy man

with too much to do, I shall have a good chance of your doing what I

want, as it would be hopeless to ask a quite idle man. As you have a

Noah's Ark, I do not doubt that you have pigeons. (How I wish by any

chance they were fantails!) Now what I want to know is, at what age

nestling pigeons have their tail feathers sufficiently developed to be

counted. I do not think I ever saw a young pigeon. I am hard at work at

my notes collecting and comparing them, in order in some two or three

years to write a book with all the facts and arguments, which I can

collect, FOR AND VERSUS the immutability of species. I want to get the

young of our domestic breeds, to see how young, and to what degree the

differences appear. I must either breed myself (which is no amusement

but a horrid bore to me) the pigeons or buy their young; and before I go

to a seller, whom I have heard of from Yarrell, I am really anxious

to know something about their development, not to expose my excessive

ignorance, and therefore be excessively liable to be cheated and gulled.

With respect to the ONE point of the tail feathers, it is of course

in relation to the wonderful development of tail feathers in the adult

fantail. If you had any breed of poultry pure, I would beg a chicken

with exact age stated, about a week or fortnight old! To be sent in

a box by post, if you could have the heart to kill one; and secondly,

would let me pay postage...Indeed, I should be very glad to have a

nestling common pigeon sent, for I mean to make skeletons, and have

already just begun comparing wild and tame ducks. And I think the

results rather curious ("I have just been testing practically what

disuse does in reducing parts; I have made skeleton of wild and

tame duck (oh, the smell of well-boiled, high duck!!) and I find the

tame-duck wing ought, according to scale of wild prototype, to have its

two wings 360 grains in weight, but it has it only 317."--A letter to

Sir J. Hooker, 1855.), for on weighing the several bones very carefully,

when perfectly cleaned the proportional weights of the two have greatly

varied, the foot of the tame having largely increased. How I wish I

could get a little wild duck of a week old, but that I know is almost

impossible.

With respect to ourselves, I have not much to say; we have now a

terribly noisy house with the whooping cough, but otherwise are all

well. Far the greatest fact about myself is that I have at last quite

done with the everlasting barnacles. At the end of the year we had two

of our little boys very ill with fever and bronchitis, and all sorts of

ailments. Partly for amusement, and partly for change of air, we went to

London and took a house for a month, but it turned out a great failure,

for that dreadful frost just set in when we went, and all our children

got unwell, and E. and I had coughs and colds and rheumatism nearly all

the time. We had put down first on our list of things to do, to go and

see Mrs. Fox, but literally after waiting some time to see whether the

weather would not improve, we had not a day when we both could go out.

I do hope before very long you will be able to manage to pay us a visit.

Time is slipping away, and we are getting oldish. Do tell us about

yourself and all your large family.

I know you will help me IF YOU CAN with information about the young

pigeons; and anyhow do write before very long.

My dear Fox, your sincere old friend, C. DARWIN.

P.S.--Amongst all sorts of odds and ends, with which I am amusing

myself, I am comparing the seeds of the variations of plants. I had

formerly some wild cabbage seeds, which I gave to some one, was it to

you? It is a THOUSAND to one it was thrown away, if not I should be very

glad of a pinch of it.

[The following extract from a letter to Mr. Fox (March 27th, 1855)

refers to the same subject as the last letter, and gives some account

of the "species work:" "The way I shall kill young things will be to put

them under a tumbler glass with a teaspoon of ether or chloroform, the

glass being pressed down on some yielding surface, and leave them for an

hour or two, young have such power of revivication. (I have thus killed

moths and butterflies.) The best way would be to send them as you

procure them, in pasteboard chip-box by post, on which you could write

and just tie up with string; and you will REALLY make me happier by

allowing me to keep an account of postage, etc. Upon my word I can

hardly believe that ANY ONE could be so good-natured as to take such

trouble and do such a very disagreeable thing as kill babies; and I am

very sure I do not know one soul who, except yourself, would do so. I am

going to ask one thing more; should old hens of any above poultry (not

duck) die or become so old as to be USELESS, I wish you would send her

to me per rail, addressed to C. Darwin, care of Mr. Acton, Post-office,

Bromley, Kent." Will you keep this address? as shortest way for parcels.

But I do not care so much for this, as I could buy the old birds dead at

Baily to make skeletons. I should have written at once even if I had

not heard from you, to beg you not to take trouble about pigeons, for

Yarrell has persuaded me to attempt it, and I am now fitting up a place,

and have written to Baily about prices, etc., etc. SOMETIME (when you

are better) I should like very much to hear a little about your

"Little Call Duck"; why so-called? And where you got it? and what it is

like?... I was so ignorant I do not even know there were three varieties

of Dorking fowl: how do they differ?...

I forget whether I ever told you what the object of my present work

is,--it is to view all facts that I can master (eheu, eheu, how ignorant

I find I am) in Natural History (as on geographical distribution,

palaeontology, classification, hybridism, domestic animals and plants,

etc., etc., etc.) to see how far they favour or are opposed to the

notion that wild species are mutable or immutable: I mean with my utmost

power to give all arguments and facts on both sides. I have a NUMBER of

people helping me in every way, and giving me most valuable assistance;

but I often doubt whether the subject will not quite overpower me.

So much for the quasi-business part of my letter. I am very very sorry

to hear so indifferent account of your health: with your large family

your life is very precious, and I am sure with all your activity and

goodness it ought to be a happy one, or as happy as can reasonably be

expected with all the cares of futurity on one.

One cannot expect the present to be like the old Crux-major days at the

foot of those noble willow stumps, the memory of which I revere. I

now find my little entomology which I wholly owe to you, comes in very

useful. I am very glad to hear that you have given yourself a rest from

Sunday duties. How much illness you have had in your life! Farewell

my dear Fox. I assure you I thank you heartily for your proffered

assistance.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, May 7th [1855].

My dear Fox,

My correspondence has cost you a deal of trouble, though this note will

not. I found yours on my return home on Saturday after a week's work

in London. Whilst there I saw Yarrell, who told me he had carefully

examined all points in the Call Duck, and did not feel any doubt about

it being specifically identical, and that it had crossed freely with

common varieties in St. James's Park. I should therefore be very glad

for a seven-days' duckling and for one of the old birds, should one ever

die a natural death. Yarrell told me that Sabine had collected forty

varieties of the common duck!...Well, to return to business; nobody,

I am sure, could fix better for me than you the characteristic age of

little chickens; with respect to skeletons, I have feared it would be

impossible to make them, but I suppose I shall be able to measure limbs,

etc., by feeling the joints. What you say about old cocks just confirms

what I thought, and I will make my skeletons of old cocks. Should an

old wild turkey ever die, please remember me; I do not care for a baby

turkey, nor for a mastiff. Very many thanks for your offer. I have

puppies of bull-dogs and greyhound in salt, and I have had cart-horse

and race-horse young colts carefully measured. Whether I shall do any

good I doubt. I am getting out of my depth.

Most truly yours, C. DARWIN.

[An extract from a letter to Mr. Fox may find a place here, though of a

later date, viz. July, 1855]:

"Many thanks for the seven days' old white Dorking, and for the other

promised ones. I am getting quite a 'chamber of horrors,' I appreciate

your kindness even more than before; for I have done the black deed and

murdered an angelic little fantail and pouter at ten days old. I tried

chloroform and ether for the first, and though evidently a perfectly

easy death, it was prolonged; and for the second I tried putting lumps

of cyanide of potassium in a very large damp bottle, half an hour before

putting in the pigeon, and the prussic acid gas thus generated was very

quickly fatal."

A letter to Mr. Fox (May 23rd, 1855) gives the first mention of my

father's laborious piece of work on the breeding of pigeons:

"I write now to say that I have been looking at some of our mongrel

chickens, and I should say ONE WEEK OLD would do very well. The chief

points which I am, and have been for years, very curious about, is to

ascertain whether the YOUNG of our domestic breeds differ as much from

each other as do their parents, and I have no faith in anything short

of actual measurement and the Rule of Three. I hope and believe I am not

giving so much trouble without a motive of sufficient worth. I have got

my fantails and pouters (choice birds, I hope, as I paid 20 shillings

for each pair from Baily) in a grand cage and pigeon-house, and they are

a decided amusement to me, and delight to H."

In the course of my father's pigeon-fancying enterprise he necessarily

became acquainted with breeders, and was fond of relating his

experiences as a member of the Columbarian and Philoperistera Clubs,

where he met the purest enthusiasts of the "fancy," and learnt much

of the mysteries of their art. In writing to Mr. Huxley some years

afterwards, he quotes from a book on 'Pigeons' by Mr. J. Eaton, in

illustration of the "extreme attention and close observation" necessary

to be a good fancier.

"In his [Mr. Eaton's] treatise, devoted to the Almond Tumbler ALONE,

which is a sub-variety of the short-faced variety, which is a variety of

the Tumbler, as that is of the Rock-pigeon, Mr. Eaton says: 'There are

some of the young fanciers who are over-covetous, who go for all the

five properties at once [i.e., the five characteristic points which are

mainly attended to,--C.D.], they have their reward by getting nothing.'

In short, it is almost beyond the human intellect to attend to ALL the

excellencies of the Almond Tumbler!

"To be a good breeder, and to succeed in improving any breed, beyond

everything enthusiasm is required. Mr. Eaton has gained lots of prizes,

listen to him.

"'If it was possible for noblemen and gentlemen to know the amazing

amount of solace and pleasure derived from the Almond Tumbler, when they

begin to understand their (i.e., the tumbler's) properties, I should

think that scarce any nobleman or gentleman would be without their

aviaries of Almond Tumblers.'"

My father was fond of quoting this passage, and always with a tone of

fellow-feeling for the author, though, no doubt, he had forgotten

his own wonderings as a child that "every gentleman did not become an

ornithologist."--('Autobiography,' page 32.)

To Mr. W.B. Tegetmeier, the well-known writer on poultry, etc., he was

indebted for constant advice and co-operation. Their correspondence

began in 1855, and lasted to 1881, when my father wrote: "I can assure

you that I often look back with pleasure to the old days when I attended

to pigeons, fowls, etc., and when you gave me such valuable assistance.

I not rarely regret that I have had so little strength that I have not

been able to keep up old acquaintances and friendships." My father's

letters to Mr. Tegetmeier consist almost entirely of series of questions

relating to the different breeds of fowls, pigeons, etc., and are not,

therefore interesting. In reading through the pile of letters, one is

much struck by the diligence of the writer's search for facts, and it is

made clear that Mr. Tegetmeier's knowledge and judgment were completely

trusted and highly valued by him. Numerous phrases, such as "your note

is a mine of wealth to me," occur, expressing his sense of the value of

Mr. Tegetmeier's help, as well as words expressing his warm appreciation

of Mr. Tegetmeier's unstinting zeal and kindness, or his "pure and

disinterested love of science." On the subject of hive-bees and their

combs, Mr. Tegetmeier's help was also valued by my father, who wrote,

"your paper on 'Bees-cells,' read before the British Association, was

highly useful and suggestive to me."

To work out the problems on the Geographical Distributions of animals

and plants on evolutionary principles, he had to study the means by

which seeds, eggs, etc., can be transported across wide spaces of ocean.

It was this need which gave an interest to the class of experiment to

which the following letters allude.]

CHARLES DARWIN TO W.D. FOX. Down, May 17th [1855].

My dear Fox,

You will hate the very sight of my hand-writing; but after this time I

promise I will ask for nothing more, at least for a long time. As you

live on sandy soil, have you lizards at all common? If you have, should

you think it too ridiculous to offer a reward for me for lizard's eggs

to the boys in your school; a shilling for every half-dozen, or more if

rare, till you got two or three dozen and send them to me? If snake's

eggs were brought in mistake it would be very well, for I want such

also; and we have neither lizards nor snakes about here. My object is

to see whether such eggs will float on sea water, and whether they will

keep alive thus floating for a month or two in my cellar. I am trying

experiments on transportation of all organic beings that I can; and

lizards are found on every island, and therefore I am very anxious to

see whether their eggs stand sea water. Of course this note need not be

answered, without, by a strange and favourable chance, you can some day

answer it with the eggs.

Your most troublesome friend, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. April 13th [1855].

...I have had one experiment some little time in progress, which will, I

think, be interesting, namely, seeds in salt water immersed in water of

32-33 degrees, which I have and shall long have, as I filled a great

tank with snow. When I wrote last I was going to triumph over you, for

my experiment had in a slight degree succeeded; but this, with infinite

baseness, I did not tell, in hopes that you would say that you would

eat all the plants which I could raise after immersion. It is very

aggravating that I cannot in the least remember what you did formerly

say that made me think you scoffed at the experiments vastly; for you

now seem to view the experiment like a good Christian. I have in small

bottles out of doors, exposed to variation of temperature, cress,

radish, cabbages, lettuces, carrots, and celery, and onion seed--four

great families. These, after immersion for exactly one week, have all

germinated, which I did not in the least expect (and thought how you

would sneer at me); for the water of nearly all, and of the cress

especially, smelt very badly, and the cress seed emitted a wonderful

quantity of mucus (the 'Vestiges' would have expected them to turn into

tadpoles), so as to adhere in a mass; but these seeds germinated and

grew splendidly. The germination of all (especially cress and lettuces)

has been accelerated, except the cabbages, which have come up very

irregularly, and a good many, I think, dead. One would have thought,

from their native habitat, that the cabbage would have stood well. The

Umbelliferae and onions seem to stand the salt well. I wash the seed

before planting them. I have written to the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (A

few words asking for information. The results were published in the

'Gardeners' Chronicle,' May 26, November 24, 1855. In the same year

(page 789) he sent a P.S. to his former paper, correcting a misprint and

adding a few words on the seeds of the Leguminosae. A fuller paper on

the germination of seeds after treatment in salt water, appeared in the

'Linnaean Soc. Journal,' 1857, page 130.), though I doubt whether it was

worth while. If my success seems to make it worth while, I will send a

seed list, to get you to mark some different classes of seeds. To-day I

replant the same seeds as above after fourteen days' immersion. As many

sea-currents go a mile an hour, even in a week they might be transported

168 miles; the Gulf Stream is said to go fifty and sixty miles a day. So

much and too much on this head; but my geese are always swans...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. [April 14th, 1855.]

...You are a good man to confess that you expected the cress would be

killed in a week, for this gives me a nice little triumph. The children

at first were tremendously eager, and asked me often, "whether I should

beat Dr. Hooker!" The cress and lettuce have just vegetated well after

twenty-one days' immersion. But I will write no more, which is a

great virtue in me; for it is to me a very great pleasure telling you

everything I do.

...If you knew some of the experiments (if they may be so-called) which

I am trying, you would have a good right to sneer, for they are so

ABSURD even in MY opinion that I dare not tell you.

Have not some men a nice notion of experimentising? I have had a letter

telling me that seeds MUST have GREAT power of resisting salt water, for

otherwise how could they get to islands? This is the true way to solve a

problem!

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1855].

My dear Hooker,

You have been a very good man to exhale some of your satisfaction in

writing two notes to me; you could not have taken a better line in

my opinion; but as for showing your satisfaction in confounding my

experiments, I assure you I am quite enough confounded--those horrid

seeds, which, as you truly observe, if they sink they won't float.

I have written to Scoresby and have had a rather dry answer, but very

much to the purpose, and giving me no hopes of any law unknown to me

which might arrest their everlasting descent into the deepest depths of

the ocean. By the way it was very odd, but I talked to Col. Sabine for

half an hour on the subject, and could not make him see with respect to

transportal the difficulty of the sinking question! The bore is, if

the confounded seeds will sink, I have been taking all this trouble in

salting the ungrateful rascals for nothing.

Everything has been going wrong with me lately; the fish at the

Zoological Society ate up lots of soaked seeds, and in imagination

they had in my mind been swallowed, fish and all, by a heron, had been

carried a hundred miles, been voided on the banks of some other lake and

germinated splendidly, when lo and behold, the fish ejected vehemently,

and with disgust equal to my own, ALL the seeds from their mouths. (In

describing these troubles to Mr. Fox, my father wrote:--"All nature is

perverse and will not do as I wish it; and just at present I wish I had

my old barnacles to work at, and nothing new." The experiment ultimately

succeeded, and he wrote to Sir J. Hooker:--"I find fish will greedily

eat seeds of aquatic grasses, and that millet-seed put into fish and

given to a stork, and then voided, will germinate. So this is the

nursery rhyme of 'this is the stick that beats the pig,' etc., etc.,")

But I am not going to give up the floating yet: in first place I must

try fresh seeds, though of course it seems far more probable that they

will sink; and secondly, as a last resource, I must believe in the pod

or even whole plant or branch being washed into the sea; with floods and

slips and earthquakes; this must continually be happening, and if kept

wet, I fancy the pods, etc. etc., would not open and shed their seeds.

Do try your Mimosa seed at Kew.

I had intended to have asked you whether the Mimosa scandens and

Guilandina bonduc grows at Kew, to try fresh seeds. R. Brown tells me

he believes four W. Indian seeds have been washed on shores of Europe.

I was assured at Keeling Island that seeds were not rarely washed

on shore: so float they must and shall! What a long yarn I have been

spinning.

If you have several of the Loffoden seeds, do soak some in tepid water,

and get planted with the utmost care: this is an experiment after my own

heart, with chances 1000 to 1 against its success.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 11th [1855].

My dear Hooker,--I have just received your note. I am most sincerely

and heartily glad at the news (The appointment of Sir J.D. Hooker as

Assistant Director of the Royal Gardens at Kew.) it contains, and so is

my wife. Though the income is but a poor one, yet the certainty, I hope,

is satisfactory to yourself and Mrs. Hooker. As it must lead in future

years to the Directorship, I do hope you look at it, as a piece of good

fortune. For my own taste I cannot fancy a pleasanter position, than

the Head of such a noble and splendid place; far better, I should

think, than a Professorship in a great town. The more I think of it, the

gladder I am. But I will say no more; except that I hope Mrs. Hooker is

pretty well pleased...

As the "Gardeners' Chronicle" put in my question, and took notice of it,

I think I am bound to send, which I had thought of doing next week, my

first report to Lindley to give him the option of inserting it; but I

think it likely that he may not think it fit for a Gardening periodical.

When my experiments are ended (should the results appear worthy) and

should the 'Linnean Journal' not object to the previous publication of

imperfect and provisional reports, I should be DELIGHTED to insert the

final report there; for it has cost me so much trouble, that I should

think that probably the result was worthy of more permanent record than

a newspaper; but I think I am bound to send it first to Lindley.

I begin to think the floating question more serious than the germinating

one; and am making all the inquiries which I can on the subject, and

hope to get some little light on it...

I hope you managed a good meeting at the Club. The Treasurership must be

a plague to you, and I hope you will not be Treasurer for long: I know I

would much sooner give up the Club than be its Treasurer.

Farewell, Mr. Assistant Director and dear friend, C. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. June 5th, 1855.

...Miss Thorley (A lady who was for many years a governess in the

family.) and I are doing A LITTLE BOTANICAL WORK! for our amusement, and

it does amuse me very much, viz., making a collection of all the plants,

which grow in a field, which has been allowed to run waste for fifteen

years, but which before was cultivated from time immemorial; and we

are also collecting all the plants in an adjoining and SIMILAR but

cultivated field; just for the fun of seeing what plants have survived

or died out. Hereafter we shall want a bit of help in naming puzzlers.

How dreadfully difficult it is to name plants.

What a REMARKABLY nice and kind letter Dr. A. Gray has sent me in answer

to my troublesome queries; I retained your copy of his 'Manual' till I

heard from him, and when I have answered his letter, I will return it to

you.

I thank you much for Hedysarum: I do hope it is not very precious,

for as I told you it is for probably a MOST foolish purpose. I read

somewhere that no plant closes its leaves so promptly in darkness, and I

want to cover it up daily for half an hour, and see if I can teach it

to close by itself, or more easily than at first in darkness...I cannot

make out why you would prefer a continental transmission, as I think

you do, to carriage by sea. I should have thought you would have been

pleased at as many means of transmission as possible. For my own pet

theoretic notions, it is quite indifferent whether they are transmitted

by sea or land, as long as some tolerably probable way is shown. But it

shocks my philosophy to create land, without some other and independent

evidence. Whenever we meet, by a very few words I should, I think, more

clearly understand your views...

I have just made out my first grass, hurrah! hurrah! I must confess that

fortune favours the bold, for, as good luck would have it, it was the

easy Anthoxanthum odoratum: nevertheless it is a great discovery; I

never expected to make out a grass in all my life, so hurrah! It has

done my stomach surprising good...

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [June?] 15th, [1855].

My dear Hooker,

I just write one line to say that the Hedysarum is come QUITE SAFELY,

and thank you for it.

You cannot imagine what amusement you have given me by naming those

three grasses: I have just got paper to dry and collect all grasses. If

ever you catch quite a beginner, and want to give him a taste of Botany,

tell him to make a perfect list of some little field or wood. Both Miss

Thorley and I agree that it gives a really uncommon interest to the

work, having a nice little definite world to work on, instead of the

awful abyss and immensity of all British Plants.

Adios. I was really consummately impudent to express my opinion "on the

retrograde step" ("To imagine such enormous geological changes within

the period of the existence of now living beings, on no other ground but

to account for their distribution, seems to me, in our present state

of ignorance on the means of transportal, an almost retrograde step

in science."--Extract from the paper on 'Salt Water and Seeds' in

"Gardeners' Chronicle", May 26, 1855.), and I deserved a good snub,

and upon reflection I am very glad you did not answer me in "Gardeners'

Chronicle".

I have been VERY MUCH interested with the Florula. (Godron's 'Florula

Juvenalis,' which gives an interesting account of plants introduced in

imported wool.)

[Writing on June 5th to Sir J.D. Hooker, my father mentions a letter

from Dr. Asa Gray. The letter referred to was an answer to the

following:]

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. (The well-known American Botanist. My

father's friendship with Dr. Gray began with the correspondence of which

the present is the first letter. An extract from a letter to Sir J.

Hooker, 1857, shows that my father's strong personal regard for Dr. Gray

had an early origin: "I have been glad to see A. Gray's letters; there

is always something in them that shows that he is a very lovable man.")

Down, April 25th [1855].

My dear Sir,

I hope that you will remember that I had the pleasure of being

introduced to you at Kew. I want to beg a great favour of you, for which

I well know I can offer no apology. But the favour will not, I think,

cause you much trouble, and will greatly oblige me. As I am no botanist,

it will seem so absurd to you my asking botanical questions; that I

may premise that I have for several years been collecting facts on

"variation," and when I find that any general remark seems to hold good

amongst animals, I try to test it in Plants. [Here follows a request for

information on American Alpine plants, and a suggestion as to publishing

on the subject.] I can assure you that I perceive how presumptuous it is

in me, not a botanist, to make even the most trifling suggestion to such

a botanist as yourself; but from what I saw and have heard of you from

our dear and kind friend Hooker, I hope and think you will forgive me,

and believe me, with much respect,

Dear sir, yours very faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th [1855].

My dear Sir,

I thank you cordially for your remarkably kind letter of the 22d. ult.,

and for the extremely pleasant and obliging manner in which you have

taken my rather troublesome questions. I can hardly tell you how much

your list of Alpine plants has interested me, and I can now in some

degree picture to myself the plants of your Alpine summits. The new

edition of your Manual is CAPITAL news for me. I know from your preface

how pressed you are for room, but it would take no space to append (Eu)

in brackets to any European plant, and, as far as I am concerned,

this would answer every purpose. (This suggestion Dr. Gray adopted in

subsequent editions.) From my own experience, whilst making out English

plants in our manuals, it has often struck me how much interest it would

give if some notion of their range had been given; and so, I cannot

doubt, your American inquirers and beginners would much like to know

which of their plants were indigenous and which European. Would it not

be well in the Alpine plants to append the very same addition which you

have now sent me in MS.? though here, owing to your kindness, I do not

speak selfishly, but merely pro bono Americano publico. I presume it

would be too troublesome to give in your manual the habitats of those

plants found west of the Rocky Mountains, and likewise those found

in Eastern Asia, taking the Yenesei (?),--which, if I remember right,

according to Gmelin, is the main partition line of Siberia. Perhaps

Siberia more concerns the northern Flora of North America. The ranges of

plants to the east and west, viz., whether most found are in Greenland

and Western Europe, or in E. Asia, appears to me a very interesting

point as tending to show whether the migration has been eastward or

westward. Pray believe me that I am most entirely conscious that

the ONLY USE of these remarks is to show a botanist what points a

non-botanist is curious to learn; for I think every one who studies

profoundly a subject often becomes unaware [on] what points the ignorant

require information. I am so very glad that you think of drawing up

some notice on your geographical distribution, for the air of the Manual

strikes me as in some points better adapted for comparison with Europe

than that of the whole of North America. You ask me to state definitely

some of the points on which I much wish for information; but I really

hardly can, for they are so vague; and I rather wish to see what results

will come out from comparisons, than have as yet defined objects. I

presume that, like other botanists, you would give, for your area, the

proportion (leaving out introduced plants) to the whole of the great

leading families: this is one point I had intended (and, indeed, have

done roughly) to tabulate from your book, but of course I could

have done it only VERY IMPERFECTLY. I should also, of course, have

ascertained the proportion, to the whole Flora, of the European plants

(leaving out introduced) AND OF THE SEPARATE GREAT FAMILIES, in order to

speculate on means of transportal. By the way, I ventured to send a few

days ago a copy of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" with a short report by me

of some trifling experiments which I have been trying on the power of

seeds to withstand sea water. I do not know whether it has struck you,

but it has me, that it would be advisable for botanists to give in WHOLE

NUMBERS, as well as in the lowest fraction, the proportional numbers of

the families, thus I make out from your Manual that of the INDIGENOUS

plants the proportion of the Umbelliferae are 36/1798 = 1/49; for,

without one knows the WHOLE numbers, one cannot judge how really

close the numbers of the plants of the same family are in two distant

countries; but very likely you may think this superfluous. Mentioning

these proportional numbers, I may give you an instance of the sort of

points, and how vague and futile they often are, which I ATTEMPT to work

out...; reflecting on R. Brown's and Hooker's remark, that near identity

of proportional numbers of the great families in two countries, shows

probably that they were once continuously united, I thought I would

calculate the proportions of, for instance, the INTRODUCED Compositae in

Great Britain to all the introduced plants, and the result was, 10/92 =

1/9.2. In our ABORIGINAL or indigenous flora the proportion is 1/10; and

in many other cases I found an equally striking correspondence. I then

took your Manual, and worked out the same question; here I find in the

Compositae an almost equally striking correspondence, viz. 24/206 = 1/8

in the introduced plants, and 223/1798 = 1/8 in the indigenous; but when

I came to the other families I found the proportion entirely different,

showing that the coincidences in the British Flora were probably

accidental!

You will, I presume, give the proportion of the species to the genera,

i.e., show on an average how many species each genus contains; though I

have done this for myself.

If it would not be too troublesome, do you not think it would be very

interesting, and give a very good idea of your Flora, to divide the

species into three groups, viz., (a) species common to the old world,

stating numbers common to Europe and Asia; (b) indigenous species, but

belonging to genera found in the old world; and (c) species belonging

to genera confined to America or the New World. To make (according to my

ideas) perfection perfect, one ought to be told whether there are other

cases, like Erica, of genera common in Europe or in Old World not found

in your area. But honestly I feel that it is quite ridiculous my writing

to you at such length on the subject; but, as you have asked me, I do it

gratefully, and write to you as I should to Hooker, who often laughs at

me unmercifully, and I am sure you have better reason to do so.

There is one point on which I am MOST anxious for information, and I

mention it with the greatest hesitation, and only in the FULL BELIEF

that you will believe me that I have not the folly and presumption

to hope for a second that you will give it, without you can with very

little trouble. The point can at present interest no one but myself,

which makes the case wholly different from geographical distribution.

The only way in which, I think, you possibly could do it with little

trouble would be to bear in mind, whilst correcting your proof-sheets

of the Manual, my question and put a cross or mark to the species, and

whenever sending a parcel to Hooker to let me have such old sheets. But

this would give you the trouble of remembering my question, and I can

hardly hope or expect that you will do it. But I will just mention what

I want; it is to have marked the "close species" in a Flora, so as

to compare in DIFFERENT Floras whether the same genera have "close

species," and for other purposes too vague to enumerate. I have

attempted, by Hooker's help, to ascertain in a similar way whether the

different species of the same genera in distant quarters of the globe

are variable or present varieties. The definition I should give of a

"CLOSE SPECIES" was one that YOU thought specifically distinct, but

which you could conceive some other GOOD botanist might think only

a race or variety; or, again, a species that you had trouble, though

having opportunities of knowing it well, in discriminating from some

other species. Supposing that you were inclined to be so very kind as

to do this, and could (which I do not expect) spare the time, as I have

said, a mere cross to each such species in any useless proof-sheets

would give me the information desired, which, I may add, I know must be

vague.

How can I apologise enough for all my presumption and the extreme length

of this letter? The great good nature of your letter to me has been

partly the cause, so that, as is too often the case in this world, you

are punished for your good deeds. With hearty thanks, believe me,

Yours very truly and gratefully, CH. DARWIN.

CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 18th [July, 1855].

...I think I am getting a MILD case about Charlock seed (In the

"Gardeners' Chronicle", 1855, page 758, appeared a notice (half a column

in length) by my father on the "Vitality of Seeds." The facts related

refer to the "Sand-walk"; the wood was planted in 1846 on a piece of

pasture land laid down as grass in 1840. In 1855, on the soil being dug

in several places, Charlock (Brassica sinapistrum) sprang up freely.

The subject continued to interest him, and I find a note dated July

2nd, 1874, in which my father recorded that forty-six plants of Charlock

sprang up in that year over a space (14 x 7 feet) which had been dug

to a considerable depth.); but just as about salting, ill-luck to it, I

cannot remember how many years you would allow that Charlock seed might

live in the ground. Next time you write, show a bold face, and say in

how many years, you think, Charlock seed would probably all be dead. A

man told me the other day of, as I thought, a splendid instance,--and

SPLENDID it was, for according to his evidence the seed came up alive

out of the LOWER PART of the LONDON CLAY!! I disgusted him by telling

him that Palms ought to have come up.

You ask how far I go in attributing organisms to a common descent; I

answer I know not; the way in which I intend treating the subject, is

to show (AS FAR AS I CAN) the facts and arguments for and against the

common descent of the species of the same genus; and then show how

far the same arguments tell for or against forms, more and more widely

different: and when we come to forms of different orders and classes,

there remain only some such arguments as those which can perhaps be

deduced from similar rudimentary structures, and very soon not an

argument is left.

[The following extract from a letter to Mr. Fox [October, 1855 (In this

year he published ('Phil. Mag.' x.) a paper 'On the power of icebergs

to make rectilinear uniformly-directed grooves across a submarine

undulatory surface.'") gives a brief mention of the last meeting of the

British Association which he attended:] "I really have no news: the

only thing we have done for a long time, was to go to Glasgow; but the

fatigue was to me more than it was worth, and E. caught a bad cold. On

our return we stayed a single day at Shrewsbury, and enjoyed seeing the

old place. I saw a little of Sir Philip (Sir P. Egerton was a neighbour

of Mr. Fox.) (whom I liked much), and he asked me "why on earth I

instigated you to rob his poultry-yard?' The meeting was a good one, and

the Duke of Argyll spoke excellently."]