Volume III., page 1, 1843.), in "Arch. du Museum," Tome 3, discusses

the value of characters of degraded flowers in the Malpighiaceae, but I

doubt whether this at all concerns you. Mirbel somewhere has discussed

some such question.

Plants lie under an enormous disadvantage in respect to such discussions

in not passing through larval stages. I do not know whether you

can distinguish a plant low from non-development from one low from

degradation, which theoretically, at least, are very distinct. I must

agree with Forbes that a mollusc may be higher than one articulate

animal and lower than another; if one was asked which was highest as a

whole, the Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I should look to and compare

the highest in each, and not compare their archetypes (supposing them to

be known, which they are not.)

But there are, in my opinion, more difficult cases than any we have

alluded to, viz., that of fish--but my ideas are not clear enough, and

I do not suppose you would care to hear what I obscurely think on this

subject. As far as my elastic theory goes, all I care about is that very

ancient organisms (when different from existing) should tend to resemble

the larval or embryological stages of the existing.

I am glad to hear what you say about parallelism: I am an utter

disbeliever of any parallelism more than mere accident. It is very

strange, but I think Forbes is often rather fanciful; his "Polarity"

(36/2. See Letter 41, Note.) makes me sick--it is like "magnetism"

turning a table.

If I can think of any one likely to take your "Illustrations" (36/3.

"Illustrations of Himalayan Plants from Drawings made by J.F. Cathcart."

Folio, 1855.), I will send the advertisement. If you want to make up

some definite number so as to go to press, I will put my name down with

PLEASURE (and I hope and believe that you will trust me in saying

so), though I should not in the course of nature subscribe to any

horticultural work:--act for me.

LETTER 37. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, [May] 29th, 1854.

I am really truly sorry to hear about your [health]. I entreat you

to write down your own case,--symptoms, and habits of life,--and then

consider your case as that of a stranger; and I put it to you, whether

common sense would not order you to take more regular exercise and work

your brain less. (N.B. Take a cold bath and walk before breakfast.) I

am certain in the long run you would not lose time. Till you have a

thoroughly bad stomach, you will not know the really great evil of

it, morally, physically, and every way. Do reflect and act resolutely.

Remember your troubled heart-action formerly plainly told how your

constitution was tried. But I will say no more--excepting that a man

is mad to risk health, on which everything, including his children's

inherited health, depends. Do not hate me for this lecture. Really I am

not surprised at your having some headache after Thursday evening, for

it must have been no small exertion making an abstract of all that was

said after dinner. Your being so engaged was a bore, for there were

several things that I should have liked to have talked over with you. It

was certainly a first-rate dinner, and I enjoyed it extremely, far more

than I expected. Very far from disagreeing with me, my London visits

have just lately taken to suit my stomach admirably; I begin to think

that dissipation, high-living, with lots of claret, is what I want,

and what I had during the last visit. We are going to act on this same

principle, and in a very profligate manner have just taken a pair of

season-tickets to see the Queen open the Crystal Palace. (37/1. Queen

Victoria opened the Crystal Palace at Sydenham on June 10th, 1854.) How

I wish there was any chance of your being there! The last grand thing we

were at together answered, I am sure, very well, and that was the Duke's

funeral.

Have you seen Forbes' introductory lecture (37/2. Edward Forbes

was appointed to a Professorship at Edinburgh in May, 1854.) in the

"Scotsman" (lent me by Horner)? it is really ADMIRABLY done, though

without anything, perhaps, very original, which could hardly be

expected: it has given me even a higher opinion than I before had, of

the variety and polish of his intellect. It is, indeed, an irreparable

loss to London natural history society. I wish, however, he would not

praise so much that old brown dry stick Jameson. Altogether, to my

taste, it is much the best introductory lecture I have ever read. I hear

his anniversary address is very good.

Adios, my dear Hooker; do be wise and good, and be careful of your

stomach, within which, as I know full well, lie intellect, conscience,

temper, and the affections.

LETTER 38. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 2nd [1854].

You are a pretty fellow to talk of funking the returning thanks at the

dinner for the medal. (38/1. The Royal medal was given to Sir Joseph

in 1854.) I heard that it was decidedly the best speech of the evening,

given "with perfect fluency, distinctness, and command of language," and

that you showed great self-possession: was the latter the proverbially

desperate courage of a coward? But you are a pretty fellow to be so

desperately afraid and then to make the crack speech. Many such an

ordeal may you have to go through! I do not know whether Sir William

[Hooker] would be contented with Lord Rosse's (38/2. President of the

Royal Society 1848-54.) speech on giving you the medal; but I am very

much pleased with it, and really the roll of what you have done was,

I think, splendid. What a great pity he half spoiled it by not having

taken the trouble just to read it over first. Poor Hofmann (38/3. August

Wilhelm Hofmann, the other medallist of 1854.) came off in this respect

even worse. It is really almost arrogant insolence against every one not

an astronomer.

The next morning I was at a very pleasant breakfast party at Sir R.

Inglis's. (38/4. Sir Robert Inglis, President of the British Association

in 1847. Apparently Darwin was present at the afternoon meeting, but

not at the dinner.) I have received, with very many thanks, the aberrant

genera; but I have not had time to consider them, nor your remarks on

Australian botanical geography.

LETTER 39. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(39/1. The following letter shows Darwin's interest in the adjudication

of the Royal medals. The year 1855 was the last during which he served

on the Council of the Society. He had previously served in 1849-50.)

Down, March 31st, 1855.

I have thought and enquired much about Westwood, and I really think he

amply deserves the gold medal. But should you think of some one with

higher claim I am quite ready to give up. Indeed, I suppose without I

get some one to second it, I cannot propose him.

Will you be so kind as to read the enclosed, and return it to me? Should

I send it to Bell? That is, without you demur or convince me. I had

thought of Hancock, a higher class of labourer; but, as far as I can

weigh, he has not, as yet, done so much as Westwood. I may state that I

read the whole "Classification" (39/2. Possibly Westwood's "Introduction

to the Modern Classification of Insects" (1839).) before I was on the

Council, and ever thought on the subject of medals. I fear my remarks

are rather lengthy, but to do him justice I could not well shorten them.

Pray tell me frankly whether the enclosed is the right sort of thing,

for though I was once on the Council of the Royal, I never attended any

meetings, owing to bad health.

With respect to the Copley medal (39/3. The Copley Medal was given to

Lyell in 1858.), I have a strong feeling that Lyell has a high claim,

but as he has had the Royal Medal I presume that it would be thought

objectionable to propose him; and as I intend (you not objecting and

converting me) to propose W. for the Royal, it would, of course, appear

intolerably presumptuous to propose for the Copley also.

LETTER 40. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 10th, 1855.

Shall you attend the Council of the Royal Society on Thursday next? I

have not been very well of late, and I doubt whether I can attend; and

if I could do anything (pray conceal the scandalous fact), I want to

go to the Crystal Palace to meet the Horners, Lyells, and a party. So I

want to know whether you will speak for me most strongly for Barrande.

You know better than I do his admirable labours on the development of

trilobites, and his most important work on his Lower or Primordial Zone.

I enclose an old note of Lyell's to show what he thinks. With respect to

Dana, whom I also proposed, you know well his merits. I can speak most

highly of his classificatory work on crustacea and his Geographical

Distribution. His Volcanic Geology is admirable, and he has done much

good work on coral reefs.

If you attend, do not answer this; but if you cannot be at the Council,

please inform me, and I suppose I must, if I can, attend.

Thank you for your abstract of your lecture at the Royal Institution,

which interested me much, and rather grieved me, for I had hoped things

had been in a slight degree otherwise. (40/1. "On certain Zoological

Arguments commonly adduced in favour of the hypothesis of the

Progressive Development of Animal Life," Discourse, Friday, April 20,

1855: "Proceedings R.I." (1855). Published also in "Huxley's Scientific

Memoirs." The lecturer dwelt chiefly on the argument of Agassiz, which

he summarises as follows: "Homocercal fishes have in their embryonic

state heterocercal tails; therefore heterocercality is, so far, a mark

of an embryonic state as compared with homocercality, and the earlier

heterocercal fish are embryonic as compared with the later homocercal."

He shows that facts do not support this view, and concludes generally

"that there is no real parallel between the successive forms assumed in

the development of the life of the individual at present and those which

have appeared at different epochs in the past.") I heard some time ago

that before long I might congratulate you on becoming a married man.

(40/2. Mr. Huxley was married July 21st, 1855.) From my own experience

of some fifteen years, I am very sure that there is nothing in this

wide world which more deserves congratulation, and most sincerely and

heartily do I congratulate you, and wish you many years of as much

happiness as this world can afford.

LETTER 41. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(41/1. The following letter illustrates Darwin's work on aberrant

genera. In the "Origin," Edition I., page 429, he wrote: "The more

aberrant any form is, the greater must be the number of connecting forms

which, on my theory, have been exterminated and utterly lost. And we

have some evidence of aberrant forms having suffered severely from

extinction, for they are generally represented by extremely few species;

and such species as do occur are generally very distinct from each

other, which again implies extinction.")

Down, November 15th [1855?].

In Schoenherr's Catalogue of Curculionidae (41/2. "Genera et Species

Curculionidum." (C.J. Schoenherr: Paris, 1833-38.)), the 6,717 species

are on an average 10.17 to a genus. Waterhouse (who knows the group

well, and who has published on fewness of species in aberrant genera)

has given me a list of 62 aberrant genera, and these have on an average

7.6 species; and if one single genus be removed (and which I cannot yet

believe ought to be considered aberrant), then the 61 aberrant genera

would have only 4.91 species on an average. I tested these results in

another way. I found in Schoenherr 9 families, including only 11 genera,

and these genera (9 of which were in Waterhouse's list) I found included

only 3.36 species on an average.

This last result led me to Lindley's "Vegetable Kingdom," in which I

found (excluding thallogens and acrogens) that the genera include each

10.46 species (how near by chance to the Curculionidae), and I find 21

orders including single genera, and these 21 genera have on average 7.95

species; but if Lindley is right that Erythroxylon (with its 75 species)

ought to be amongst the Malpighiads, then the average would be only 4.6

per genus.

But here comes, as it appears to me, an odd thing (I hope I shall not

quite weary you out). There are 29 other orders, each with 2 genera,

and these 58 genera have on an average 15.07 species: this great number

being owing to the 10 genera in the Smilaceae, Salicaceae (with 220

species), Begoniaceae, Balsaminaceae, Grossulariaceae, without which the

remaining 48 genera have on an average only 5.91 species.

This case of the orders with only 2 genera, the genera notwithstanding

having 15.07 species each, seems to me very perplexing and upsets,

almost, the conclusion deducible from the orders with single genera.

I have gone higher, and tested the alliances with 1, 2, and 3 orders;

and in these cases I find both the genera few in each alliance, and the

species, less than the average of the whole kingdom, in each genus.

All this has amused me, but I daresay you will have a good sneer at me,

and tell me to stick to my barnacles. By the way, you agree with me that

sometimes one gets despondent--for instance, when theory and facts will

not harmonise; but what appears to me even worse, and makes me despair,

is, when I see from the same great class of facts, men like Barrande

deduce conclusions, such as his "Colonies" (41/3. Lyell briefly refers

to Barrande's Bohemian work in a letter (August 31st, 1856) to Fleming

("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," II., page 225): "He explained to me on the

spot his remarkable discovery of a 'colony' of Upper Silurian fossils,

3,400 feet deep, in the midst of the Lower Silurian group. This has made

a great noise, but I think I can explain away the supposed anomaly by,

etc." (See Letter 40, Note.) and his agreement with E. de Beaumont's

lines of Elevation, or such men as Forbes with his Polarity (41/4.

Edward Forbes "On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of

Organised Beings in Time" ("Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," Volume LVII.,

1854, page 332). The author points out that "the maximum development

of generic types during the Palaeozoic period was during its earlier

epochs; that during the Neozoic period towards its later periods." Thus

the two periods of activity are conceived to be at the two opposite

poles of a sphere which in some way represents for him the system of

Nature.); I have not a doubt that before many months are over I shall

be longing for the most dishonest species as being more honest than the

honestest theories. One remark more. If you feel any interest, or can

get any one else to feel any interest on the aberrant genera question,

I should think the most interesting way would be to take aberrant genera

in any great natural family, and test the average number of species to

the genera in that family.

How I wish we lived near each other! I should so like a talk with you on

geographical distribution, taken in its greatest features. I have been

trying from land productions to take a very general view of the world,

and I should so like to see how far it agrees with plants.

LETTER 42. TO MRS. LYELL.

(42/1. Mrs. Lyell is a daughter of the late Mr. Leonard Horner, and

widow of Lieut.-Col. Lyell, a brother of Sir Charles.)

Down, January 26th [1856].

I shall be very glad to be of any sort of use to you in regard to the

beetles. But first let me thank you for your kind note and offer of

specimens to my children. My boys are all butterfly hunters; and all

young and ardent lepidopterists despise, from the bottom of their souls,

coleopterists.

The simplest plan for your end and for the good of entomology, I should

think, would be to offer the collection to Dr. J.E. Gray for the British

Museum on condition that a perfect set was made out for you. If the

collection was at all valuable, I should think he would be very glad to

have this done. Whether any third set would be worth making out would

depend on the value of the collection. I do not suppose that you expect

the insects to be named, for that would be a most serious labour. If you

do not approve of this scheme, I should think it very likely that Mr.

Waterhouse would think it worth his while to set a series for you,

retaining duplicates for himself; but I say this only on a venture.

You might trust Mr. Waterhouse implicitly, which I fear, as [illegible]

goes, is more than can be said for all entomologists. I presume, if

you thought of either scheme, Sir Charles Lyell could easily see the

gentlemen and arrange it; but, if not, I could do so when next I come to

town, which, however, will not be for three or four weeks.

With respect to giving your children a taste for Natural History, I will

venture one remark--viz., that giving them specimens in my opinion would

tend to destroy such taste. Youngsters must be themselves collectors

to acquire a taste; and if I had a collection of English lepidoptera, I

would be systematically most miserly, and not give my boys half a dozen

butterflies in the year. Your eldest has the brow of an observer, if

there be the least truth in phrenology. We are all better, but we have

been of late a poor household.

LETTER 43. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1855].

I should have less scruple in troubling you if I had any confidence

what my work would turn out. Sometimes I think it will be good, at

other times I really feel as much ashamed of myself as the author of the

"Vestiges" ought to be of himself. I know well that your kindness and

friendship would make you do a great deal for me, but that is no reason

that I should be unreasonable. I cannot and ought not to forget that all

your time is employed in work certain to be valuable. It is superfluous

in me to say that I enjoy exceedingly writing to you, and that your

answers are of the greatest possible service to me. I return with

many thanks the proof on Aquilegia (43/1. This seems to refer to

the discussion on the genus Aquilegia in Hooker and Thomson's "Flora

Indica," 1855, Volume I., Systematic Part, page 44. The authors'

conclusion is that "all the European and many of the Siberian forms

generally recognised belong to one very variable species." With regard

to cirripedes, Mr. Darwin spoke of "certain just perceptible differences

which blend together and constitute varieties and not species" ("Life

and Letters," I., page 379).): it has interested me much. It is exactly

like my barnacles; but for my particular purpose, most unfortunately,

both Kolreuter and Gartner have worked chiefly on A. vulgaris and

canadensis and atro-purpurea, and these are just the species that you

seem not to have studied. N.B. Why do you not let me buy the Indian

Flora? You are too magnificent.

Now for a short ride on my chief (at present) hobbyhorse, viz. aberrant

genera. What you say under your remarks on Lepidodendron seems just the

case that I want, to give some sort of evidence of what we both believe

in, viz. how groups came to be anomalous or aberrant; and I think some

sort of proof is required, for I do not believe very many naturalists

would at all admit our view.

Thank you for the caution on large anomalous genera first catching

attention. I do not quite agree with your "grave objection to the whole

process," which is "that if you multiply the anomalous species by 100,

and divide the normal by the same, you will then reverse the names..."

For, to take an example, Ornithorhynchus and Echidna would not be less

aberrant if each had a dozen (I do not say 100, because we have no such

cases in the animal kingdom) species instead of one. What would really

make these two genera less anomalous would be the creation of many

genera and sub-families round and radiating from them on all sides.

Thus if Australia were destroyed, Didelphys in S. America would be

wonderfully anomalous (this is your case with Proteaceae), whereas now

there are so many genera and little sub-families of Marsupiata that the

group cannot be called aberrant or anomalous. Sagitta (and the earwig)

is one of the most anomalous animals in the world, and not a bit the

less because there are a dozen species. Now, my point (which, I think is

a slightly new point of view) is, if it is extinction which has made the

genus anomalous, as a general rule the same causes of extinction would

allow the existence of only a few species in such genera. Whenever we

meet (which will be on the 23rd [at the] Club) I shall much like to hear

whether this strikes you as sound. I feel all the time on the borders of

a circle of truism. Of course I could not think of such a request,

but you might possibly:--if Bentham does not think the whole subject

rubbish, ask him some time to pick out the dozen most anomalous genera

in the Leguminosae, or any great order of which there is a monograph by

which I could calculate the ordinary percentage of species to genera. I

am the more anxious, as the more I enquire, the fewer are the cases

in which it can be done. It cannot be done in birds, or, I fear, in

mammifers. I doubt much whether in any other class of insects [other

than Curculionidae].

I saw your nice notice of poor Forbes in the "Gardeners' Chronicle,"

and I see in the "Athenaeum" a notice of meeting on last Saturday of his

friends. Of course I shall wish to subscribe as soon as possible to any

memorial...

I have just been testing practically what disuse does in reducing

parts. I have made [skeletons] of wild and tame duck (oh the smell of

well-boiled, high duck!), and I find the tame duck ought, according to

scale of wild prototype, to have its two wings 360 grains in weight; but

it has only 317, or 43 grains too little, or 1/7 of [its] own two wings

too little in weight. This seems rather interesting to me. (43/2. On

the conclusions drawn from these researches, see Mr. Platt Ball, "The

Effects of Use and Disuse" (Nature Series), 1890, page 55. With regard

to his pigeons, Darwin wrote, in November 1855: "I love them to that

extent that I cannot bear to kill and skeletonise them.")

P.S.--I do not know whether you will think this worth reading over. I

have worked it out since writing my letter, and tabulate the whole.

21 orders with 1 genus, having 7.95 species (or 4.6?).

29 orders with 2 genera, having 15.05 species on an average.

23 orders each with 3 genera, and these genera include on an average 8.2

species.

20 orders each with 4 genera, and these genera include on an average

12.2 species.

27 orders each with above 50 genera (altogether 4716 genera), and these

genera on an average have 9.97 species.

From this I conclude, whether there be many or few genera in an order,

the number of species in a genus is not much affected; but perhaps when

[there is] only one genus in an order it will be affected, and this will

depend whether the [genus] Erythroxylon be made a family of.

LETTER 44. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th [1856].

I have been particularly glad to get your splendid eloge of Lindley. His

name had been lately passing through my head, and I had hoped that Miers

would have proposed him for the Royal medal. I most entirely agree that

the Copley (44/1. The late Professor Lindley never attained the honour

of the Copley medal. The Royal medal was awarded to him in 1857.) is

more appropriate, and I daresay he would not have valued the Royal. From

skimming through many botanical books, and from often consulting the

"Vegetable Kingdom," I had (ignorant as I am) formed the highest opinion

of his claims as a botanist. If Sharpey will stick up strong for him,

we should have some chance; but the natural sciences are but feebly

represented in the Council. Sir P. Egerton, I daresay, would be strong

for him. You know Bell is out. Now, my only doubt is, and I hope that

you will consider this, that the natural sciences being weak on the

Council, and (I fancy) the most powerful man in the Council, Col.

S[abine], being strong against Lindley, whether we should have any

chance of succeeding. It would be so easy to name some eminent man whose

name would be well-known to all the physicists. Would Lindley hear of

and dislike being proposed for the Copley and not succeeding? Would it

not be better on this view to propose him for the Royal? Do think of

this. Moreover, if Lindley is not proposed for the Royal, I fear both

Royal medals would go [to] physicists; for I, for one, should not like

to propose another zoologist, though Hancock would be a very good man,

and I fancy there would be a feeling against medals to two botanists.

But for whatever Lindley is proposed, I will do my best. We will talk

this over here.

LETTER 45. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 9th [1856].

...With respect to Huxley, I was on the point of speaking to Crawford

and Strezlecki (who will be on Committee of the Athenaeum) when I

bethought me of how Owen would look and what he would say. Cannot you

fancy him, with slow and gentle voice, asking "Will Mr. Crawford tell

me what Mr. Huxley has done, deserving this honour; I only know that

he differs from, and disputes the authority of Cuvier, Ehrenberg, and

Agassiz as of no weight at all." And when I began to tell Mr. Crawford

what to say, I was puzzled, and could refer him only to some excellent

papers in the "Phil. Trans." for which the medal had been awarded. But

I doubt, with an opposing faction, whether this would be considered

enough, for I believe real scientific merit is not thought enough,

without the person is generally well known. Now I want to hear what you

deliberately think on this head: it would be bad to get him proposed and

then rejected; and Owen is very powerful.

LETTER 46. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1856].

I have got the Lectures, and have read them. (46/1. The reference is

presumably to the Royal Institution Lectures given in 1854-56. Those

which we have seen--namely, those reprinted in the "Scientific Memoirs,"