part in preventing their acquiring sterility when crossed. For the want

of uniformity, and changes in the conditions of life, seem the

only cause of the elimination of sterility (when crossed) under

domestication. (92/3. The meaning which we attach to this obscure

sentence is as follows: Species in a state of nature are closely adapted

to definite conditions of life, so that the sexual constitution of

species A is attuned, as it were, to a condition different from that to

which B is attuned, and this leads to sterility. But domestic varieties

are not strictly adapted by Natural Selection to definite conditions,

and thus have less specialised sexual constitutions.) This elimination,

though admitted by many authors, rests on very slight evidence, yet I

think is very probably true, as may be inferred from the case of

dogs. Under nature it seems improbable that the differences in the

reproductive constitution, on which the sterility of any two species

when crossed depends, can be acquired directly by Natural Selection; for

it is of no advantage to the species. Such differences in reproductive

constitution must stand in correlation with some other differences; but

how impossible to conjecture what these are! Reflect on the case of

the variations of Verbascum, which differ in no other respect whatever

besides the fluctuating element of the colour of the flower, and yet it

is impossible to resist Gartner's evidence, that this difference in the

colour does affect the mutual fertility of the varieties.

The whole case seems to me far too mysterious to rest (92/4. The word

"rest" seems to be used in place of "to serve as a foundation for.") a

valid attack on the theory of modification of species, though, as you

say, it offers excellent ground for a mere advocate.

I am surprised, considering how ignorant we are on very many points,

[that] more weak parts in my book have not as yet been pointed out to

me. No doubt many will be. H.C. Watson founds his objection in MS. on

there being no limit to infinite diversification of species: I have

answered this, I think, satisfactorily, and have sent attack and answer

to Lyell and Hooker. If this seems to you a good objection, I would

send papers to you. Andrew Murray "disposes of" the whole theory by an

ingenious difficulty from the distribution of blind cave insects (92/5.

See "Life and Letters, Volume II., page 265. The reference here is to

Murray's address before the Botanical Society, Edinburgh. Mr. Darwin

seems to have read Murray's views only in a separate copy reprinted from

the "Proc. R. Soc. Edin." There is some confusion about the date of the

paper; the separate copy is dated January 16th, while in the volume of

the "Proc. R. Soc." it is February 20th. In the "Life and Letters," II.,

page 261 it is erroneously stated that these are two different papers.);

but it can, I think, be fairly answered.

LETTER 93. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, [February] 2nd [1860].

I have had this morning a letter from old Bronn (93/1. See "Life and

Letters, II., page 277.) (who, to my astonishment, seems slightly

staggered by Natural Selection), and he says a publisher in Stuttgart is

willing to publish a translation, and that he, Bronn, will to a certain

extent superintend. Have you written to Kolliker? if not, perhaps I had

better close with this proposal--what do you think? If you have written,

I must wait, and in this case will you kindly let me hear as soon as you

hear from Kolliker?

My poor dear friend, you will curse the day when you took up the

"general agency" line; but really after this I will not give you any

more trouble.

Do not forget the three tickets for us for your lecture, and the ticket

for Baily, the poulterer.

Old Bronn has published in the "Year-book for Mineralogy" a notice of

the "Origin" (93/2. "Neues Jahrb. fur Min." 1860, page 112.); and says

he has himself published elsewhere a foreboding of the theory!

LETTER 94. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 14th [1860].

I succeeded in persuading myself for twenty-four hours that Huxley's

lecture was a success. (94/1. At the Royal Institution. See "Life and

Letters," II., page 282.) Parts were eloquent and good, and all very

bold; and I heard strangers say, "What a good lecture!" I told Huxley

so; but I demurred much to the time wasted in introductory remarks,

especially to his making it appear that sterility was a clear and

manifest distinction of species, and to his not having even alluded to

the more important parts of the subject. He said that he had much more

written out, but time failed. After conversation with others and more

reflection, I must confess that as an exposition of the doctrine the

lecture seems to me an entire failure. I thank God I did not think so

when I saw Huxley; for he spoke so kindly and magnificently of me, that

I could hardly have endured to say what I now think. He gave no just

idea of Natural Selection. I have always looked at the doctrine of

Natural Selection as an hypothesis, which, if it explained several

large classes of facts, would deserve to be ranked as a theory deserving

acceptance; and this, of course, is my own opinion. But, as Huxley

has never alluded to my explanation of classification, morphology,

embryology, etc., I thought he was thoroughly dissatisfied with all this

part of my book. But to my joy I find it is not so, and that he agrees

with my manner of looking at the subject; only that he rates higher than

I do the necessity of Natural Selection being shown to be a vera

causa always in action. He tells me he is writing a long review in the

"Westminster." It was really provoking how he wasted time over the idea

of a species as exemplified in the horse, and over Sir J. Hall's old

experiment on marble. Murchison was very civil to me over my book after

the lecture, in which he was disappointed. I have quite made up my mind

to a savage onslaught; but with Lyell, you, and Huxley, I feel confident

we are right, and in the long run shall prevail. I do not think Asa Gray

has quite done you justice in the beginning of the review of me. (94/2.

"Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by means of Natural

Selection," by "A.G." ("Amer. Jour. Sci." Volume XXIX., page 153, 1860).

In a letter to Asa Gray on February 18th, 1860, Darwin writes: "Your

review seems to me admirable; by far the best which I have read." ("Life

and Letters," II., 1887, page 286.) The review seemed to me very good,

but I read it very hastily.

LETTER 95. TO C. LYELL. Down, [February] 18th [1860].

I send by this post Asa Gray, which seems to me very good, with the

stamp of originality on it. Also Bronn's "Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie."

(95/1. See Letter 93.)

The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to make it out. I

never tried such confoundedly hard german; nor does it seem worth the

labour. He sticks to Priestley's Green Matter, and seems to think that

till it can be shown how life arises it is no good showing how the forms

of life arise. This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great

things with little) as to say it was no use in Newton showing the laws

of attraction of gravity and the consequent movement of the planets,

because he could not show what the attraction of gravity is.

The expression "Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (95/2. "Die fruchtbarste und

allgemeinste Ursache der Varietaten-Bildung ist jedoch die Wahl

der Lebens-Weise" (loc. cit., page 112).) makes me doubt whether B.

understands what I mean by Natural Selection, as I have told him. He

says (if I understand him) that you ought to be on the same side with

me.

P.S. Sunday afternoon.--I have kept back this to thank you for your

letter, with much news, received this morning. My conscience is uneasy

at the time you waste in amusing and interesting me. I was very

curious to hear about Phillips. The review in the "Annals" is, as I was

convinced, by Wollaston, for I have had a very cordial letter from him

this morning. (95/3. A bibliographical Notice "On the Origin of Species

by means of Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races

in the Struggle for Life." ("Annals and Mag." Volume V., pages 132-43,

1860). The notice is not signed. Referring to the article, in a

letter to Lyell, February 15th, 1860, Darwin writes: "I am perfectly

convinced...that the review in the "Annals" is by Wollaston; no one else

in the world would have used so many parentheses" ("Life and Letters,"

II., page 284).)

I send by this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" by Harvey

(a first-rate botanist, as you probably know). (95/4. In the "Gardeners'

Chronicle" of February 18th, 1860, W.H. Harvey described a case of

monstrosity in Begonia frigida, which he argued was hostile to the

theory of Natural Selection. The passage about Harvey's attack was

published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) It seems to me

rather strange; he assumes the permanence of monsters, whereas monsters

are generally sterile, and not often inheritable. But grant his case,

it comes [to this], that I have been too cautious in not admitting great

and sudden variations. Here again comes in the mischief of my abstract.

In fuller MS. I have discussed the parallel case of a normal fish like a

monstrous gold-fish.

I end my discussion by doubting, because all cases of monstrosities

which resemble normal structures which I could find were not in allied

groups. Trees like Aspicarpa (95/5. Aspicarpa, an American genus of

Malpighiaceae, is quoted in the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 367) as an

illustration of Linnaeus' aphorism that the characters do not give

the genus, but the genus gives the characters. During several years'

cultivation in France Aspicarpa produced only degraded flowers, which

differed in many of the most important points of structure from the

proper type of the order; but it was recognised by M. Richard that the

genus should be retained among the Malpighiaceae. "This case," adds

Darwin, "well illustrates the spirit of our classification."), with

flowers of two kinds (in the "Origin"), led me also to speculate on the

same subject; but I could find only one doubtfully analogous case of

species having flowers like the degraded or monstrous flowers. Harvey

does not see that if only a few (as he supposes) of the seedlings

inherited being monstrosities, Natural Selection would be necessary

to select and preserve them. You had better return the "Gardeners'

Chronicle," etc., to my brother's. The case of Begonia (95/6. Harvey's

criticism was answered by Sir J.D. Hooker in the following number of the

"Gardeners' Chronicle" (February 25th, 1860, page 170).) in itself is

very curious; I am tempted to answer the notice, but I will refrain, for

there would be no end to answers.

With respect to your objection of a multitude of still living simple

forms, I have not discussed it anywhere in the "Origin," though I have

often thought it over. What you say about progress being only occasional

and retrogression not uncommon, I agree to; only that in the animal

kingdom I greatly doubt about retrogression being common. I have always

put it to myself--What advantage can we see in an infusory animal, or an

intestinal worm, or coral polypus, or earthworm being highly developed?

If no advantage, they would not become highly developed: not but what

all these animals have very complex structures (except infusoria), and

they may well be higher than the animals which occupied similar places

in the economy of nature before the Silurian epoch. There is a blind

snake with the appearances and, in some respects, habits of earthworms;

but this blind snake does not tend, as far as we can see, to replace and

drive out worms. I think I must in a future edition discuss a few more

such points, and will introduce this and H.C. Watson's objection about

the infinite number of species and the general rise in organisation. But

there is a directly opposite objection to yours which is very difficult

to answer--viz. how at the first start of life, when there were only

the simplest organisms, how did any complication of organisation profit

them? I can only answer that we have not facts enough to guide any

speculation on the subject.

With respect to Lepidosiren, Ganoid fishes, perhaps Ornithorhynchus, I

suspect, as stated in the "Origin," (95/7. "Origin of Species" (Edition

VI.), page 83.), that they have been preserved, from inhabiting

fresh-water and isolated parts of the world, in which there has been

less competition and less rapid progress in Natural Selection, owing

to the fewness of individuals which can inhabit small areas; and where

there are few individuals variation at most must be slower. There are

several allusions to this notion in the "Origin," as under Amblyopsis,

the blind cave-fish (95/8. "Origin," page 112.), and under Heer (95/9.

"Origin," page 83.) about Madeira plants resembling the fossil and

extinct plants of Europe.

LETTER 96. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, March 5th [1860?].

I am much obliged for your long and interesting letter. You have indeed

good right to speak confidently about the habits of wild birds and

animals; for I should think no one beside yourself has ever sported in

Spitzbergen and Southern Africa. It is very curious and interesting

that you should have arrived at the conclusion that so-called "Natural

Selection" had been efficient in giving their peculiar colours to our

grouse. I shall probably use your authority on the similar habits of our

grouse and the Norwegian species.

I am particularly obliged for your very curious fact of the effect

produced by the introduction of the lowland grouse on the wildness of

the grouse in your neighbourhood. It is a very striking instance of what

crossing will do in affecting the character of a breed. Have you ever

seen it stated in any sporting work that game has become wilder in this

country? I wish I could get any sort of proof of the fact, for your

explanation seems to me equally ingenious and probable. I have myself

witnessed in South America a nearly parallel [case] with that which

you mention in regard to the reindeer in Spitzbergen, with the Cervus

campestris of La Plata. It feared neither man nor the sound of shot of

a rifle, but was terrified at the sight of a man on horseback; every one

in that country always riding. As you are so great a sportsman, perhaps

you will kindly look to one very trifling point for me, as my neighbours

here think it too absurd to notice--namely, whether the feet of birds

are dirty, whether a few grains of dirt do not adhere occasionally to

their feet. I especially want to know how this is in the case of birds

like herons and waders, which stalk in the mud. You will guess that this

relates to dispersal of seeds, which is one of my greatest difficulties.

My health is very indifferent, and I am seldom able to attend the

scientific meetings, but I sincerely hope that I may some time have the

pleasure of meeting you.

Pray accept my cordial thanks for your very kind letter.

LETTER 97. TO G.H.K. THWAITES. Down, March 21st [1860].

I thank you very sincerely for your letter, and am much pleased that you

go a little way with me. You will think it presumptuous, but I am well

convinced from my own mental experience that if you keep the subject at

all before your mind you will ultimately go further. The present volume

is a mere abstract, and there are great omissions. One main one, which

I have rectified in the foreign editions, is an explanation (which has

satisfied Lyell, who made the same objection with you) why many forms do

not progress or advance (and I quite agree about some retrograding). I

have also a MS. discussion on beauty; but do you really suppose that for

instance Diatomaceae were created beautiful that man, after millions of

generations, should admire them through the microscope? (97/1. Thwaites

(1811-82) published several papers on the Diatomaceae ("On Conjugation

in the Diatomaceae," "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XX., 1847, pages

9-11, 343-4; "Further Observations on the Diatomaceae," loc. cit., 1848,

page 161). See "Life and Letters" II., page 292.) I should attribute

most of such structures to quite unknown laws of growth; and mere

repetition of parts is to our eyes one main element of beauty. When any

structure is of use (and I can show what curiously minute particulars

are often of highest use), I can see with my prejudiced eyes no limit to

the perfection of the coadaptations which could be effected by Natural

Selection. I rather doubt whether you see how far, as it seems to me,

the argument for homology and embryology may be carried. I do not look

at this as mere analogy. I would as soon believe that fossil shells were

mere mockeries of real shells as that the same bones in the foot of a

dog and wing of a bat, or the similar embryo of mammal and bird, had

not a direct signification, and that the signification can be unity of

descent or nothing. But I venture to repeat how much pleased I am that

you go some little way with me. I find a number of naturalists do

the same, and as their halting-places are various, and I must think

arbitrary, I believe they will all go further. As for changing at once

one's opinion, I would not value the opinion of a man who could do so;

it must be a slow process. (97/2. Darwin wrote to Woodward in regard to

the "Origin": "It may be a vain and silly thing to say, but I believe

my book must be read twice carefully to be fully understood. You will

perhaps think it by no means worth the labour.") Thank you for telling

me about the Lantana (97/3. An exotic species of Lantana (Verbenaceae)

grows vigorously in Ceylon, and is described as frequently making its

appearance after the firing of the low-country forests (see H.H.W.

Pearson, "The Botany of the Ceylon Patanas," "Journal Linn. Soc." Volume

XXXIV., page 317, 1899). No doubt Thwaites' letter to Darwin referred

to the spreading of the introduced Lantana, comparable to that of the

cardoon in La Plata and of other plants mentioned by Darwin in the

"Origin of Species" (Edition VI., page 51).), and I should at any time

be most grateful for any information which you think would be of use

to me. I hope that you will publish a list of all naturalised plants

in Ceylon, as far as known, carefully distinguishing those confined to

cultivated soils alone. I feel sure that this most important subject has

been greatly undervalued.

LETTER 98. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(98/1. The reference here is to the review on the "Origin of Species"

generally believed to be by the late Sir R. Owen, and published in

the April number of the "Edinburgh Review," 1860. Owen's biographer

is silent on the subject, and prints, without comment, the following

passage in an undated letter from Sedgwick to Owen: "Do you know who was

the author of the article in the "Edinburgh" on the subject of Darwin's

theory? On the whole, I think it very good. I once suspected that you

must have had a hand in it, and I then abandoned that thought. I have

not read it with any care" (Owen's "Life," Volume II., page 96).

April 9th [1860].

I never saw such an amount of misrepresentation. At page 530 (98/2.

"Lasting and fruitful conclusions have, indeed, hitherto been based

only on the possession of knowledge; now we are called upon to accept an

hypothesis on the plea of want of knowledge. The geological record,

it is averred, is so imperfect!"--"Edinburgh Review," CXI., 1860, page

530.) he says we are called on to accept the hypothesis on the plea of

ignorance, whereas I think I could not have made it clearer that I admit

the imperfection of the Geological Record as a great difficulty.

The quotation (98/3. "We are appealed to, or at least 'the young and

rising naturalists with plastic minds,* [On the Nature of the Limbs,

page 482] are adjured." It will be seen that the inverted comma after

"naturalists" is omitted; the asterisk referring, in a footnote (here

placed in square brackets), to page 482 of the "Origin," seems to

have been incorrectly assumed by Mr. Darwin to show the close of the

quotation.--Ibid., page 512.) on page 512 of the "Review" about "young

and rising naturalists with plastic minds," attributed to "nature of

limbs," is a false quotation, as I do not use the words "plastic minds."

At page 501 (98/4. The passage ("Origin," Edition I., page 483) begins,

"But do they really believe...," and shows clearly that the author

considers such a belief all but impossible.) the quotation is garbled,

for I only ask whether naturalists believe about elemental atoms

flashing, etc., and he changes it into that I state that they do

believe.

At page 500 (98/5. "All who have brought the transmutation speculation

to the test of observed facts and ascertained powers in organic life,

and have published the results, usually adverse to such speculations,

are set down by Mr. Darwin as 'curiously illustrating the blindness of

preconceived opinion.'" The passage in the "Origin," page 482, begins

by expressing surprise at the point of view of some naturalists: "They

admit that a multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves

thought were special creations,...have been produced by variation, but

they refuse to extend the same view to other and very slightly

different forms...They admit variation as a vera causa in one case, they

arbitrarily reject it in another, without assigning any distinction in

the two cases. The day will come when this will be given as a curious

illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion.") it is very

false to say that I imply by "blindness of preconceived opinion" the

simple belief of creation. And so on in other cases. But I beg pardon

for troubling you. I am heartily sorry that in your unselfish endeavours

to spread what you believe to be truth, you should have incurred so

brutal an attack. (98/6. The "Edinburgh" Reviewer, referring to Huxley's

Royal Institution Lecture given February 10th, 1860, "On Species and

Races and their Origin," says (page 521), "We gazed with amazement at

the audacity of the dispenser of the hour's intellectual amusement,

who, availing himself of the technical ignorance of the majority of his

auditors, sought to blind them as to the frail foundations of 'natural

selection' by such illustrations as the subjoined": And then follows

a critique of the lecturer's comparison of the supposed descent of

the horse from the Palaeothere with that of various kinds of domestic

pigeons from the Rock-pigeon.) And now I will not think any more of this

false and malignant attack.

LETTER 99. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 13th [1860].

I thank you very sincerely for your two kind notes. The next time you

write to your father I beg you to give him from me my best thanks, but I

am sorry that he should have had the trouble of writing when ill. I have

been much interested by the facts given by him. If you think he would

in the least care to hear the result of an artificial cross of two sweet

peas, you can send the enclosed; if it will only trouble him, tear it

up. There seems to be so much parallelism in the kind of variation from

my experiment, which was certainly a cross, and what Mr. Masters has

observed, that I cannot help suspecting that his peas were crossed by

bees, which I have seen well dusted with the pollen of the sweet pea;

but then I wish this, and how hard it is to prevent one's wish biassing

one's judgment!

I was struck with your remark about the Compositae, etc. I do not see

that it bears much against me, and whether it does or not is of

course of not the slightest importance. Although I fully agree that

no definition can be drawn between monstrosities and slight variations

(such as my theory requires), yet I suspect there is some distinction.

Some facts lead me to think that monstrosities supervene generally at

an early age; and after attending to the subject I have great doubts

whether species in a state of nature ever become modified by such sudden

jumps as would result from the Natural Selection of monstrosities. You

cannot do me a greater service than by pointing out errors. I sincerely

hope that your work on monstrosities (99/1. "Vegetable Teratology,"

London, 1869 (Ray Soc.).) will soon appear, for I am sure it will be

highly instructive.

Now for your notes, for which let me again thank you.

1. Your conclusion about parts developed (99/2. See "Origin of Species,"

Edition I., page 153, on the variability of parts "developed in an

extraordinary manner in any one species, compared with the other species

of the same genus." See "Life and Letters," II., pages 97, 98, also

Letter 33.) not being extra variable agrees with Hooker's. You will see

that I have stated that the rule apparently does not hold with plants,

though it ought, if true, to hold good with them.

2. I cannot now remember in what work I saw the statement about Peloria

affecting the axis, but I know it was one which I thought might be

trusted. I consulted also Dr. Falconer, and I think that he agreed to

the truth of it; but I cannot now tell where to look for my notes. I had

been much struck with finding a Laburnum tree with the terminal

flowers alone in each raceme peloric, though not perfectly regular. The

Pelargonium case in the "Origin" seems to point in the same direction.

(99/3. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 145.)

3. Thanks for the correction about furze: I found the seedlings just

sprouting, and was so much surprised and their appearance that I sent

them to Hooker; but I never plainly asked myself whether they were

cotyledons or first leaves. (99/4. The trifoliate leaves of furze

seedlings are not cotyledons, but early leaves: see Lubbock's

"Seedlings," I., page 410.)

4. That is a curious fact about the seeds of the furze, the more curious

as I found with Leguminosae that immersion in plain cold water for a

very few days killed some kinds.

If at any time anything should occur to you illustrating or opposing my

notions, and you have leisure to inform me, I should be truly grateful,

for I can plainly see that you have wealth of knowledge.

With respect to advancement or retrogression in organisation in

monstrosities of the Compositae, etc., do you not find it very difficult

to define which is which?

Anyhow, most botanists seem to differ as widely as possible on this

head.

LETTER 100. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 8th [1860].

Very many thanks about the Elodea, which case interests me much. I

wrote to Mr. Marshall (100/1. W. Marshall was the author of "Anacharis

alsinastrum, a new water-weed": four letters to the "Cambridge

Independent Press," reprinted as a pamphlet, 1852.) at Ely, and in due

time he says he will send me whatever information he can procure.

Owen is indeed very spiteful. (100/2. Owen was believed to be the author

of the article in the "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860. See Letter 98.)

He misrepresents and alters what I say very unfairly. But I think his

conduct towards Hooker most ungenerous: viz., to allude to his essay

(Australian Flora), and not to notice the magnificent results on

geographical distribution. The Londoners say he is mad with envy because

my book has been talked about; what a strange man to be envious of a

naturalist like myself, immeasurably his inferior! From one conversation

with him I really suspect he goes at the bottom of his hidden soul as

far as I do.

I wonder whether Sedgwick noticed in the "Edinburgh Review" about

the "Sacerdotal revilers,"--so the revilers are tearing each other

to pieces. I suppose Sedgwick will be very fierce against me at the

Philosophical Society. (100/3. The meeting of the "Cambridge Phil.

Soc." was held on May 7th, 1860, and fully reported in the "Cambridge

Chronicle," May 19th. Sedgwick is reported to have said that "Darwin's

theory is not inductive--is not based on a series of acknowledged

facts, leading to a general conclusion evolved, logically out of the

facts...The only facts he pretends to adduce, as true elements of

proof, are the varieties produced by domestication and the artifices

of crossbreeding." Sedgwick went on to speak of the vexatious

multiplication of supposed species, and adds, "In this respect Darwin's

theory may help to simplify our classifications, and thereby do good

service to modern science. But he has not undermined any grand truth

in the constancy of natural laws, and the continuity of true species.")

Judging from his notice in the "Spectator," (100/4. March 24th, 1860;

see "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) he will misrepresent me, but it

will certainly be unintentionally done. In a letter to me, and in

the above notice, he talks much about my departing from the spirit of

inductive philosophy. I wish, if you ever talk on the subject to him,

you would ask him whether it was not allowable (and a great step) to

invent the undulatory theory of light, i.e. hypothetical undulations,

in a hypothetical substance, the ether. And if this be so, why may I not

invent the hypothesis of Natural Selection (which from the analogy

of domestic productions, and from what we know of the struggle for

existence and of the variability of organic beings, is, in some very

slight degree, in itself probable) and try whether this hypothesis of

Natural Selection does not explain (as I think it does) a large

number of facts in geographical distribution--geological succession,

classification, morphology, embryology, etc. I should really much like

to know why such an hypothesis as the undulation of the ether may be

invented, and why I may not invent (not that I did invent it, for I

was led to it by studying domestic varieties) any hypothesis, such as

Natural Selection.

Pray forgive me and my pen for running away with me, and scribbling on

at such length.

I can perfectly understand Sedgwick (100/5. See "Life and Letters," II.,

page 247; the letter is there dated December 24th, but must, we think,

have been written in November at latest.) or any one saying that Natural

Selection does not explain large classes of facts; but that is very

different from saying that I depart from right principles of scientific

investigation.

LETTER 101. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 14th [1860].

I have been greatly interested by your letter to Hooker, and I must

thank you from my heart for so generously defending me, as far as you

could, against my powerful attackers. Nothing which persons say hurts

me for long, for I have an entire conviction that I have not been

influenced by bad feelings in the conclusions at which I have arrived.

Nor have I published my conclusions without long deliberation, and they

were arrived at after far more study than the public will ever know of,

or believe in. I am certain to have erred in many points, but I do not

believe so much as Sedgwick and Co. think.

Is there any Abstract or Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical

Society published? (101/1. Henslow's remarks are not given in the

above-mentioned report in the "Cambridge Chronicle.") If so, and you

could get me a copy, I should like to have one.

Believe me, my dear Henslow, I feel grateful to you on this occasion,

and for the multitude of kindnesses you have done me from my earliest

days at Cambridge.

LETTER 102. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 22nd [1860].

Hooker has sent me a letter of Thwaites (102/1. See Letter 97.), of

Ceylon, who makes exactly the same objections which you did at first

about the necessity of all forms advancing, and therefore the difficulty

of simple forms still existing. There was no worse omission than this in

my book, and I had the discussion all ready.

I am extremely glad to hear that you intend adding new arguments about

the imperfection of the Geological Record. I always feel this acutely,

and am surprised that such men as Ramsay and Jukes do not feel it more.

I quite agree on insufficient evidence about mummy wheat. (102/2. See

notes appended to a letter to Lyell, September 1843 (Botany).

When you can spare it, I should like (but out of mere curiosity) to see

Binney on Coal marine marshes.

I once made Hooker very savage by saying that I believed the Coal plants

grew in the sea, like mangroves. (102/3. See "Life and Letters," I.,

page 356.)

LETTER 103. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(103/1. This letter is of interest as containing a strong expression

upon the overwhelming importance of selection.)

Down [1860].

Many thanks for Harvey's letter (103/2. W.H. Harvey had been

corresponding with Sir J.D. Hooker on the "Origin of Species."), which

I will keep a little longer and then return. I will write to him and

try to make clear from analogy of domestic productions the part which I

believe selection has played. I have been reworking my pigeons and other

domestic animals, and I am sure that any one is right in saying that

selection is the efficient cause, though, as you truly say, variation

is the base of all. Why I do not believe so much as you do in physical

agencies is that I see in almost every organism (though far more

clearly in animals than in plants) adaptation, and this except in rare

instances, must, I should think, be due to selection.

Do not forget the Pyrola when in flower. (103/3. In a letter to Hooker,

May 22nd, 1860, Darwin wrote: "Have you Pyrola at Kew? if so, for

heaven's sake observe the curvature of the pistil towards the gangway to

the nectary." The fact of the stigma in insect-visited flowers being so

placed that the visitor must touch it on its way to the nectar, was a

point which early attracted Darwin's attention and strongly impressed

him.) My blessed little Scaevola has come into flower, and I will try

artificial fertilisation on it.

I have looked over Harvey's letter, and have assumed (I hope rightly)

that he could not object to knowing that you had forwarded it to me.

LETTER 104. TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th [1860].

I have to thank you for two notes, one through Hooker, and one with

some letters to be posted, which was done. I anticipated your request by

making a few remarks on Owen's review. (104/1. "The Edinburgh Review,"

April, 1860.) Hooker is so weary of reviews that I do not think you

will get any hints from him. I have lately had many more "kicks than

halfpence." A review in the last Dublin "Nat. Hist. Review" is the most

unfair thing which has appeared,--one mass of misrepresentation. It

is evidently by Haughton, the geologist, chemist and mathematician.

It shows immeasurable conceit and contempt of all who are not

mathematicians. He discusses bees' cells, and puts a series which I have

never alluded to, and wholly ignores the intermediate comb of Melipona,

which alone led me to my notions. The article is a curiosity of

unfairness and arrogance; but, as he sneers at Malthus, I am content,

for it is clear he cannot reason. He is a friend of Harvey, with whom

I have had some correspondence. Your article has clearly, as he admits,

influenced him. He admits to a certain extent Natural Selection, yet I

am sure does not understand me. It is strange that very few do, and I

am become quite convinced that I must be an extremely bad explainer. To

recur for a moment to Owen: he grossly misrepresents and is very unfair

to Huxley. You say that you think the article must be by a pupil of

Owen; but no one fact tells so strongly against Owen, considering his

former position at the College of Surgeons, as that he has never reared

one pupil or follower. In the number just out of "Fraser's Magazine"

(104/2. See "Life and Letters," II., page 314.) there is an article or

review on Lamarck and me by W. Hopkins, the mathematician, who, like

Haughton, despises the reasoning power of all naturalists. Personally he

is extremely kind towards me; but he evidently in the following number

means to blow me into atoms. He does not in the least appreciate the

difference in my views and Lamarck's, as explaining adaptation, the

principle of divergence, the increase of dominant groups, and the almost

necessary extinction of the less dominant and smaller groups, etc.

LETTER 105. TO C. LYELL. Down, June 17th [1860].

One word more upon the Deification (105/1. "If we confound 'Variation'

or 'Natural Selection' with such creational laws, we deify secondary

causes or immeasurably exaggerate their influence" (Lyell, "The

Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories

on the Origin of Species by Variation," page 469, London, 1863). See

Letter 131.) of Natural Selection: attributing so much weight to it

does not exclude still more general laws, i.e. the ordering of the whole

universe. I have said that Natural Selection is to the structure of

organised beings what the human architect is to a building. The very

existence of the human architect shows the existence of more general

laws; but no one, in giving credit for a building to the human

architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has

appeared.

No astronomer, in showing how the movements of planets are due to

gravity, thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed

that the planets should pursue the courses which they pursue. I cannot

believe that there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the

construction of each species than in the course of the planets. It

is only owing to Paley and Co., I believe, that this more special

interference is thought necessary with living bodies. But we shall never

agree, so do not trouble yourself to answer.

I should think your remarks were very just about mathematicians not

being better enabled to judge of probabilities than other men of

common-sense.

I have just got more returns about the gestation of hounds. The

period differs at least from sixty-one to seventy-four days, just as I

expected.

I was thinking of sending the "Gardeners' Chronicle" to you, on account

of a paper by me on the fertilisation of orchids by insects (105/2.

"Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency." This article in

the "Gardeners' Chronicle" of June 9th, 1860, page 528, begins with a

request that observations should be made on the manner of fertilisation

in the bee-and in the fly-orchis.), as it involves a curious point, and

as you cared about my paper on kidney beans; but as you are so busy, I

will not.

LETTER 106. TO C. LYELL. Down [June?] 20th [1860].

I send Blyth (106/1. See Letter 27.); it is a dreadful handwriting; the

passage is on page 4. In a former note he told me he feared there was

hardly a chance of getting money for the Chinese expedition, and spoke

of your kindness.

Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I wonder at, admire,

and thank you for your patience in writing so much. I rather demur to

Deinosaurus not having "free will," as surely we have. I demur also

to your putting Huxley's "force and matter" in the same category with

Natural Selection. The latter may, of course, be quite a false view; but

surely it is not getting beyond our depth to first causes.

It is truly very remarkable that the gestation of hounds (106/2. In

a letter written to Lyell on June 25th, 1860, the following paragraph

occurs: "You need not believe one word of what I said about gestation

of dogs. Since writing to you I have had more correspondence with the

master of hounds, and I see his [record?] is worth nothing. It may,

of course, be correct, but cannot be trusted. I find also different

statements about the wolf: in fact, I am all abroad.") should vary so

much, while that of man does not. It may be from multiple origin. The

eggs from the Musk and the common duck take an intermediate period in

hatching; but I should rather look at it as one of the ten thousand

cases which we cannot explain--namely, when one part or function varies

in one species and not in another.

Hooker has told me nothing about his explanation of few Arctic forms; I

knew the fact before. I had speculated on what I presume, from what you

say, is his explanation (106/3. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic

Plants," J.D. Hooker, "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIII., page 251, 1862.

[read June 21st, 1860.] In this paper Hooker draws attention to the

exceptional character of the Greenland flora; but as regards the paucity

of its species and in its much greater resemblance to the floras of

Arctic Europe than to those of Arctic America, he considers it difficult

to account for these facts, "unless we admit Mr. Darwin's hypotheses"

(see "Origin," Edition VI., 1872, Chapter XII., page 330) of a southern

migration due to the cold of the glacial period and the subsequent

return of the northern types during the succeeding warmer period. Many

of the Greenland species, being confined to the peninsula, "would, as it

were, be driven into the sea--that is exterminated" (Hooker, op. cit.,

pages 253-4).); but there must have been at all times an Arctic region.

I found the speculation got too complex, as it seemed to me, to be worth

following out.

I have been doing some more interesting work with orchids. Talk of

adaptation in woodpeckers (106/4. "Can a more striking instance of

adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and

seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?" (Origin of Species," Edition

HAVE I., page 141).), some of the orchids beat it.

I showed the case to Elizabeth Wedgwood, and her remark was, "Now you

have upset your own book, for you won't persuade me that this could be

effected by Natural Selection."

LETTER 107. TO T.H. HUXLEY. July 20th [1860].

Many thanks for your pleasant letter. I agree to every word you say

about "Fraser" and the "Quarterly." (107/1. Bishop Wilberforce's review

of the "Origin" in the "Quarterly Review," July, 1860, was republished

in his "Collected Essays," 1874. See "Life and Letters, II., page 182,

and II., page 324, where some quotations from the review are given.

For Hopkins' review in "Fraser's Magazine," June, 1860, see "Life and

Letters," II., 314.) I have had some really admirable letters

from Hopkins. I do not suppose he has ever troubled his head about

geographical distribution, classification, morphologies, etc., and it

is only those who have that will feel any relief in having some sort of

rational explanation of such facts. Is it not grand the way in which the

Bishop asserts that all such facts are explained by ideas in God's mind?

The "Quarterly" is uncommonly clever; and I chuckled much at the way

my grandfather and self are quizzed. I could here and there see Owen's

hand. By the way, how comes it that you were not attacked? Does Owen

begin to find it more prudent to leave you alone? I would give five

shillings to know what tremendous blunder the Bishop made; for I see

that a page has been cancelled and a new page gummed in.

I am indeed most thoroughly contented with the progress of opinion.

From all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did

the subject great good. (107/2. An account of the meeting of the British

Association at Oxford in 1860 is given in the "Life and Letters,"

II., page 320, and a fuller account in the one-volume "Life of Charles

Darwin," 1892, page 236. See also the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley,"