Volume II. many bits of hard reading, on minute points which we, who

have not worked experimentally at cultivation and crossing, as you have

done, can hardly see the importance of, or their bearing on the general

question.

If I am asked, I may perhaps write an article on the book for some

periodical, and, if so, shall do what I can to make "Pangenesis"

appreciated...

(220/1. In "Nature," May 25th, 1871, page 69, appeared a letter on

pangenesis from Mr. A.C. Ranyard, dealing with the difficulty that the

"sexual elements produced upon the scion" have not been shown to be

affected by the stock. Mr. Darwin, in an annotated copy of this letter,

disputes the accuracy of the statement, but adds: "THE BEST OBJECTION

YET RAISED." He seems not to have used Mr. Ranyard's remarks in the 2nd

edition of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," 1875.)

LETTER 221. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 21st [1868].

I know that you have been overworking yourself, and that makes you think

that you are doing nothing in science. If this is the case (which I do

not believe), your intellect has all run to letter-writing, for I never

in all my life received a pleasanter one than your last. It greatly

amused us all. How dreadfully severe you are on the Duke (221/1. The

late Duke of Argyll, whose "Reign of Law" Sir J.D. Hooker had been

reading.): I really think too severe, but then I am no fair judge, for

a Duke, in my eyes, is no common mortal, and not to be judged by common

rules! I pity you from the bottom of my soul about the address (221/2.

Sir Joseph was President of the British Association at Norwich in

1868: see "Life and Letters," III., page 100. The reference to "Insular

Floras" is to Sir Joseph's lecture at the Nottingham meeting of the

British Association in 1866: see "Life and Letters," III., page 47.): it

makes my flesh creep; but when I pitied you to Huxley, he would not join

at all, and would only say that you did and delivered your Insular Flora

lecture so admirably in every way that he would not bestow any pity

on you. He felt certain that you would keep your head high up.

Nevertheless, I wish to God it was all over for your sake. I think,

from several long talks, that Huxley will give an excellent and original

lecture on Geograph. Distrib. of birds. I have been working very

hard--too hard of late--on Sexual Selection, which turns out a

gigantic subject; and almost every day new subjects turn up requiring

investigation and leading to endless letters and searches through books.

I am bothered, also, with heaps of foolish letters on all sorts of

subjects, but I am much interested in my subject, and sometimes see

gleams of light. All my other letters have prevented me indulging myself

in writing to you; but I suddenly found the locust grass (221/3. No

doubt the plants raised from seeds taken from locust dung sent by Mr.

Weale from South Africa. The case is mentioned in the fifth edition of

the "Origin," published in 1869, page 439.) yesterday in flower, and had

to despatch it at once. I suppose some of your assistants will be able

to make the genus out without great trouble. I have done little in

experiment of late, but I find that mignonette is absolutely sterile

with pollen from the same plant. Any one who saw stamen after stamen

bending upwards and shedding pollen over the stigmas of the same flower

would declare that the structure was an admirable contrivance for

self-fertilisation. How utterly mysterious it is that there should be

some difference in ovules and contents of pollen-grains (for the tubes

penetrate own stigma) causing fertilisation when these are taken from

any two distinct plants, and invariably leading to impotence when taken

from the same plant! By Jove, even Pan. (221/4. Pangenesis.) won't

explain this. It is a comfort to me to think that you will be surely

haunted on your death-bed for not honouring the great god Pan. I am

quite delighted at what you say about my book, and about Bentham; when

writing it, I was much interested in some parts, but latterly I thought

quite as poorly of it as even the "Athenaeum." It ought to be read

abroad for the sake of the booksellers, for five editions have come or

are coming out abroad! I am ashamed to say that I have read only the

organic part of Lyell, and I admire all that I have read as much as

you. It is a comfort to know that possibly when one is seventy years old

one's brain may be good for work. It drives me mad, and I know it does

you too, that one has no time for reading anything beyond what must be

read: my room is encumbered with unread books. I agree about Wallace's

wonderful cleverness, but he is not cautious enough in my opinion.

I find I must (and I always distrust myself when I differ from him)

separate rather widely from him all about birds' nests and protection;

he is riding that hobby to death. I never read anything so miserable as

Andrew Murray's criticism on Wallace in the last number of his Journal.

(221/5. See "Journal of Travel and Natural History," Volume I., No.

3, page 137, London, 1868, for Andrew Murray's "Reply to Mr. Wallace's

Theory of Birds' Nests," which appeared in the same volume, page 73.

The "Journal" came to an end after the publication of one volume for

1867-8.) I believe this Journal will die, and I shall not cry: what a

contrast with the old "Natural History Review."

LETTER 222. TO J.D. HOOKER. Freshwater, Isle of Wight, July 28th [1868].

I am glad to hear that you are going (222/1. In his Presidential Address

at Norwich.) to touch on the statement that the belief in Natural

Selection is passing away. I do not suppose that even the "Athenaeum"

would pretend that the belief in the common descent of species is

passing away, and this is the more important point. This now almost

universal belief in the evolution (somehow) of species, I think may be

fairly attributed in large part to the "Origin." It would be well

for you to look at the short Introduction of Owen's "Anat. of

Invertebrates," and see how fully he admits the descent of species.

Of the "Origin," four English editions, one or two American, two French,

two German, one Dutch, one Italian, and several (as I was told) Russian

editions. The translations of my book on "Variation under Domestication"

are the results of the "Origin;" and of these two English, one American,

one German, one French, one Italian, and one Russian have appeared, or

will soon appear. Ernst Hackel wrote to me a week or two ago, that new

discussions and reviews of the "Origin" are continually still coming

out in Germany, where the interest on the subject certainly does not

diminish. I have seen some of these discussions, and they are good ones.

I apprehend that the interest on the subject has not died out in North

America, from observing in Professor and Mrs. Agassiz's Book on Brazil

how exceedingly anxious he is to destroy me. In regard to this country,

every one can judge for himself, but you would not say interest was

dying out if you were to look at the last number of the "Anthropological

Review," in which I am incessantly sneered at. I think Lyell's

"Principles" will produce a considerable effect. I hope I have given

you the sort of information which you want. My head is rather unsteady,

which makes my handwriting worse than usual.

If you argue about the non-acceptance of Natural Selection, it seems to

me a very striking fact that the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which

seems to every one now so certain and plain, was rejected by a man

so extraordinarily able as Leibnitz. The truth will not penetrate a

preoccupied mind.

Wallace (222/2. Wallace, "Westminster Review," July, 1867. The

article begins: "There is no more convincing proof of the truth of a

comprehensive theory, than its power of absorbing and finding a place

for new facts, and its capability of interpreting phenomena, which had

been previously looked upon as unaccountable anomalies..." Mr. Wallace

illustrates his statement that "a false theory will never stand this

test," by Edward Forbes' "polarity" speculations (see page 84 of

the present volume) and Macleay's "Circular" and "Quinarian System"

published in his "Horae Entomologicae," 1821, and developed by Swainson

in the natural history volumes of "Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia."

Mr. Wallace says that a "considerable number of well-known naturalists

either spoke approvingly of it, or advocated similar principles, and for

a good many years it was decidedly in the ascendant...yet it quite died

out in a few short years, its very existence is now a matter of history,

and so rapid was its fall that...Swainson, perhaps, lived to be the last

man who believed in it. Such is the course of a false theory. That of

a true one is very different, as may be well seen by the progress of

opinion on the subject of Natural Selection."

Here, (page 3) follows a passage on the overwhelming importance of

Natural Selection, underlined with apparent approval in Mr. Darwin's

copy of the review.), in the "Westminster Review," in an article on

Protection has a good passage, contrasting the success of Natural

Selection and its growth with the comprehension of new classes of facts

(222/3. This rather obscure phrase may be rendered: "its power of growth

by the absorption of new facts."), with false theories, such as the

Quinarian Theory, and that of Polarity, by poor Forbes, both of

which were promulgated with high advantages and the first temporarily

accepted.

LETTER 223. TO G.H. LEWES.

(223/1. The following is printed from a draft letter inscribed by Mr.

Darwin "Against organs having been formed by direct action of medium in

distinct organisms. Chiefly luminous and electric organs and thorns."

The draft is carelessly written, and all but illegible.)

August 7th, 1868.

If you mean that in distinct animals, parts or organs, such for instance

as the luminous organs of insects or the electric organs of fishes, are

wholly the result of the external and internal conditions to which the

organs have been subjected, in so direct and inevitable a manner that

they could be developed whether of use or not to their possessor, I

cannot admit [your view]. I could almost as soon admit that the whole

structure of, for instance, a woodpecker, had thus originated; and

that there should be so close a relation between structure and external

circumstances which cannot directly affect the structure seems to me to

[be] inadmissible. Such organs as those above specified seem to me

much too complex and generally too well co-ordinated with the whole

organisation, for the admission that they result from conditions

independently of Natural Selection. The impression which I have taken,

studying nature, is strong, that in all cases, if we could collect all

the forms which have ever lived, we should have a close gradation from

some most simple beginning. If similar conditions sufficed, without the

aid of Natural Selection, to give similar parts or organs, independently

of blood relationship, I doubt much whether we should have that striking

harmony between the affinities, embryological development, geographical

distribution, and geological succession of all allied organisms. We

should be much more puzzled than we now are how to class, in a natural

method, many forms. It is puzzling enough to distinguish between

resemblance due to descent and to adaptation; but (fortunately

for naturalists), owing to the strong power of inheritance, and to

excessively complex causes and laws of variability, when the same end

or object has been gained, somewhat different parts have generally been

modified, and modified in a different manner, so that the resemblances

due to descent and adaptation can commonly be distinguished. I should

just like to add, that we may understand each other, how I suppose the

luminous organs of insects, for instance, to have been developed; but I

depend on conjectures, for so few luminous insects exist that we have

no means of judging, by the preservation to the present day of slightly

modified forms, of the probable gradations through which the organs have

passed. Moreover, we do not know of what use these organs are. We see

that the tissues of many animals, [as] certain centipedes in England,

are liable, under unknown conditions of food, temperature, etc., to

become occasionally luminous; just like the [illegible]: such luminosity

having been advantageous to certain insects, the tissues, I suppose,

become specialised for this purpose in an intensified degree; in certain

insects in one part, in other insects in other parts of the body. Hence

I believe that if all extinct insect-forms could be collected, we should

have gradations from the Elateridae, with their highly and constantly

luminous thoraxes, and from the Lampyridae, with their highly luminous

abdomens, to some ancient insects occasionally luminous like the

centipede.

I do not know, but suppose that the microscopical structure of the

luminous organs in the most different insects is nearly the same; and I

should attribute to inheritance from a common progenitor, the similarity

of the tissues, which under similar conditions, allowed them to vary

in the same manner, and thus, through Natural Selection for the same

general purpose, to arrive at the same result. Mutatis mutandis, I

should apply the same doctrine to the electric organs of fishes; but

here I have to make, in my own mind, the violent assumption that some

ancient fish was slightly electrical without having any special organs

for the purpose. It has been stated on evidence, not trustworthy, that

certain reptiles are electrical. It is, moreover, possible that the

so-called electric organs, whilst in a condition not highly developed,

may have subserved some distinct function: at least, I think, Matteucci

could detect no pure electricity in certain fishes provided with the

proper organs. In one of your letters you alluded to nails, claws,

hoofs, etc. From their perfect coadaptation with the whole rest of the

organisation, I cannot admit that they would have been formed by the

direct action of the conditions of life. H. Spencer's view that they

were first developed from indurated skin, the result of pressure on the

extremities, seems to me probable.

In regard to thorns and spines I suppose that stunted and [illegible]

hardened processes were primarily left by the abortion of various

appendages, but I must believe that their extreme sharpness and hardness

is the result of fluctuating variability and "the survival of the

fittest." The precise form, curvature and colour of the thorns I freely

admit to be the result of the laws of growth of each particular plant,

or of their conditions, internal and external. It would be an astounding

fact if any varying plant suddenly produced, without the aid of

reversion or selection, perfect thorns. That Natural Selection would

tend to produce the most formidable thorns will be admitted by every

one who has observed the distribution in South America and Africa (vide

Livingstone) of thorn-bearing plants, for they always appear where the

bushes grow isolated and are exposed to the attacks of mammals. Even

in England it has been noticed that all spine-bearing and sting-bearing

plants are palatable to quadrupeds, when the thorns are crushed. With

respect to the Malayan climbing Palm, what I meant to express is that

the admirable hooks were perhaps not first developed for climbing; but

having been developed for protection were subsequently used, and perhaps

further modified for climbing.

LETTER 224. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 8th [1868].

About the "Pall Mall." (224/1. "Pall Mall Gazette," August 22nd, 1868.

In an article headed "Dr. Hooker on Religion and Science," and referring

to the British Association address, the writer objects to any supposed

opposition between religion and science. "Religion," he says, "is your

opinion upon one set of subjects, science your opinion upon another set

of subjects." But he forgets that on one side we have opinions assumed

to be revealed truths; and this is a condition which either results in

the further opinion that those who bring forward irreconcilable facts

are more or less wicked, or in a change of front on the religious side,

by which theological opinion "shifts its ground to meet the requirements

of every new fact that science establishes, and every old error

that science exposes" (Dr. Hooker as quoted by the "Pall Mall"). If

theologians had been in the habit of recognising that, in the words of

the "Pall Mall" writer, "Science is a general name for human knowledge

in its most definite and general shape, whatever may be the object of

that knowledge," probably Sir Joseph Hooker's remarks would never have

been made.) I do not agree that the article was at all right; it struck

me as monstrous (and answered on the spot by the "Morning Advertiser")

that religion did not attack science. When, however, I say not at all

right, I am not sure whether it would not be wisest for scientific men

quite to ignore the whole subject of religion. Goldwin Smith, who has

been lunching here, coming with the Nortons (son of Professor Norton and

friend of Asa Gray), who have taken for four months Keston Rectory,

was strongly of opinion it was a mistake. Several persons have spoken

strongly to me as very much admiring your address. For chance of you

caring to see yourself in a French dress, I send a journal; also with a

weak article by Agassiz on Geographical Distribution. Berkeley has sent

me his address (224/2. The Rev. M.J. Berkeley was President of Section D

at Norwich in 1868.), so I have had a fair excuse for writing to him. I

differ from you: I could hardly bear to shake hands with the "Sugar of

Lead" (224/3. "You know Mrs. Carlyle said that Owen's sweetness reminded

her of sugar of lead." (Huxley to Tyndall, May 13th, 1887: Huxley's

"Life," II., page 167.), which I never heard before: it is capital. I

am so very glad you will come here with Asa Gray, as if I am bad he will

not be dull. We shall ask the Nortons to come to dinner. On Saturday,

Wallace (and probably Mrs. W.), J. Jenner Weir (a very good man), and

Blyth, and I fear not Bates, are coming to stay the Sunday. The thought

makes me rather nervous; but I shall enjoy it immensely if it does not

kill me. How I wish it was possible for you to be here!

LETTER 225. TO M.J. BERKELEY. Down, September 7th, 1868.

I am very much obliged to you for having sent me your address (225/1.

Address to Section D of the British Association. ("Brit. Assoc. Report,"

Norwich meeting, 1868, page 83.))...for I thus gain a fair excuse

for troubling you with this note to thank you for your most kind and

extremely honourable notice of my works.

When I tell you that ever since I was an undergraduate at Cambridge

I have felt towards you the most unfeigned respect, from all that

I continually heard from poor dear Henslow and others of your great

knowledge and original researches, you will believe me when I say that I

have rarely in my life been more gratified than by reading your address;

though I feel that you speak much too strongly of what I have done. Your

notice of pangenesis (225/3. "It would be unpardonable to finish

these somewhat desultory remarks without adverting to one of the

most interesting subjects of the day,--the Darwinian doctrine of

pangenesis...Like everything which comes from the pen of a writer whom I

have no hesitation, so far as my judgment goes, in considering as by

far the greatest observer of our age, whatever may be thought of his

theories when carried out to their extreme results, the subject demands

a careful and impartial consideration." (Berkeley, page 86.)) has

particularly pleased me, for it has been generally neglected or

disliked by my friends; yet I fully expect that it will some day be more

successful. I believe I quite agree with you in the manner in which the

cast-off atoms or so-called gemmules probably act (225/4. "Assuming

the general truth of the theory that molecules endowed with certain

attributes are cast off by the component cells of such infinitesimal

minuteness as to be capable of circulating with the fluids, and in the

end to be present in the unimpregnated embryo-cell and spermatozoid...it

seems to me far more probable that they should be capable under

favourable circumstances of exercising an influence analogous to that

which is exercised by the contents of the pollen-tube or spermatozoid on

the embryo-sac or ovum, than that these particles should be themselves

developed into cells" (Berkeley, page 87).): I have never supposed that

they were developed into free cells, but that they penetrated other

nascent cells and modified their subsequent development. This process

I have actually compared with ordinary fertilisation. The cells thus

modified, I suppose cast off in their turn modified gemmules, which

again combine with other nascent cells, and so on. But I must not

trouble you any further.

LETTER 226. TO AUGUST WEISMANN. Down, October 22nd, 1868.

I am very much obliged for your kind letter, and I have waited for a

week before answering it in hopes of receiving the "kleine Schrift"

(226/1. The "kleine Schrift" is "Ueber die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen

Theorie," Leipzig, 1868. The "Anhang" is "Ueber den Einfluss der

Wanderung und raumlichen Isolirung auf die Artbilding.") to which you

allude; but I fear it is lost, which I am much surprised at, as I have

seldom failed to receive anything sent by the post.

As I do not know the title, and cannot order a copy, I should be very

much obliged if you can spare another.

I am delighted that you, with whose name I am familiar, should approve

of my work. I entirely agree with what you say about each species

varying according to its own peculiar laws; but at the same time it

must, I think, be admitted that the variations of most species have in

the lapse of ages been extremely diversified, for I do not see how it

can be otherwise explained that so many forms have acquired analogous

structures for the same general object, independently of descent. I am

very glad to hear that you have been arguing against Nageli's law of

perfectibility, which seems to me superfluous. Others hold similar

views, but none of them define what this "perfection" is which cannot

be gradually attained through Natural Selection. I thought M. Wagner's

first pamphlet (226/2. Wagner's first essay, "Die Darwin'sche Theorie

und das Migrationsgesetz," 1868, is a separately published pamphlet of

62 pages. In the preface the author states that it is a fuller version

of a paper read before the Royal Academy of Science at Munich in March

1868. We are not able to say which of Wagner's writings is referred to

as the second pamphlet; his second well-known essay, "Ueber den Einfluss

der Geogr. Isolirung," etc., is of later date, viz., 1870.) (for I have

not yet had time to read the second) very good and interesting; but

I think that he greatly overrates the necessity for emigration and

isolation. I doubt whether he has reflected on what must occur when his

forms colonise a new country, unless they vary during the very first

generation; nor does he attach, I think, sufficient weight to the cases

of what I have called unconscious selection by man: in these cases races

are modified by the preservation of the best and the destruction of the

worst, without any isolation.

I sympathise with you most sincerely on the state of your eyesight: it

is indeed the most fearful evil which can happen to any one who, like

yourself, is earnestly attached to the pursuit of natural knowledge.

LETTER 227. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 18th [1869].

Since I wrote a few days ago and sent off three copies of your book,

I have read the English translation (227/1. "Facts and Arguments for

Darwin." See "Life and Letters," III., page 37.), and cannot deny myself

the pleasure of once again expressing to you my warm admiration. I

might, but will not, repeat my thanks for the very honourable manner in

which you often mention my name; but I can truly say that I look at the

publication of your essay as one of the greatest honours ever conferred

on me. Nothing can be more profound and striking than your observations

on development and classification. I am very glad that you have added

your justification in regard to the metamorphoses of insects; for your

conclusion now seems in the highest degree probable. (227/2. See "Facts

and Arguments for Darwin," page 119 (note), where F. Muller gives his

reasons for the belief that the "complete metamorphosis" of insects was

not a character of the form from which insects have sprung: his

argument largely depends on considerations drawn from the study of the

neuroptera.) I have re-read many parts, especially that on cirripedes,

with the liveliest interest. I had almost forgotten your discussion

on the retrograde development of the Rhizocephala. What an admirable

illustration it affords of my whole doctrine! A man must indeed be a

bigot in favour of separate acts of creation if he is not staggered

after reading your essay; but I fear that it is too deep for English

readers, except for a select few.

LETTER 228. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 27th [1869].

I have lately (i.e., in new edition of the "Origin") (228/1. Fifth

edition, 1869, pages 150-57.) been moderating my zeal, and attributing

much more to mere useless variability. I did think I would send you the

sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in which I discuss

Nageli's Essay on Natural Selection not affecting characters of

no functional importance, and which yet are of high classificatory

importance. Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on

this head.

LETTER 229. TO J.D. HOOKER. Caerdeon, Barmouth, North Wales, July 24th

[1869].

We shall be at home this day week, taking two days on the journey, and

right glad I shall be. The whole has been a failure to me, but much

enjoyment to the young...My wife has ailed a good deal nearly all the

time; so that I loathe the place, with all its beauty. I was glad to

hear what you thought of F. Muller, and I agree wholly with you. Your

letter came at the nick of time, for I was writing on the very day to

Muller, and I passed on your approbation of Chaps. X. and XI. Some time

I should like to borrow the "Transactions of the New Zealand Institute,"

so as to read Colenso's article. (229/1. Colenso, "On the Maori Races of

New Zealand." "N.Z. Inst. Trans." 1868, Pt. 3.) You must read Huxley

v. Comte (229/2. "The Scientific Aspects of Positivism." "Fortnightly

Review," 1869, page 652, and "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 162. This was a

reply to Mr. Congreve's article, "Mr. Huxley on M. Comte," published in

the April number of the "Fortnightly," page 407, which had been

written in criticism of Huxley's article in the February number of the

"Fortnightly," page 128, "On the Physical Basis of Life."); he never

wrote anything so clever before, and has smashed everybody right and

left in grand style. I had a vague wish to read Comte, and so had

George, but he has entirely cured us of any such vain wish.

There is another article (229/3. "North British Review," Volume 50,

1869: "Geological Time," page 406. The papers reviewed are Sir William

Thomson, "Trans. R. Soc. Edin." 1862; "Phil. Mag." 1863; Thomson and

Tait, "Natural Philosophy," Volume I., App. D; Sir W. Thomson, "Proc.

R. Soc. Edin." 1865; "Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow," 1868 and 1869;

"Macmillan's Mag." 1862; Prof. Huxley, Presidential Address, "Geol.

Soc. London," February, 1869; Dr. Hooker, Presidential Address, "Brit.

Assoc." Norwich, 1868. Also the review on the "Origin" in the "North

British Review," 1867, by Fleeming Jenkin, and an article in the "Pall

Mall Gazette," May 3rd, 1869. The author treats the last-named with

contempt as the work of an anonymous journalist, apparently unconscious

of his own similar position.) just come out in last "North British," by

some great mathematician, which is admirably done; he has a severe fling

at you (229/4. The author of the "North British" article appears to us,

at page 408, to misunderstand or misinterpret Sir J.D. Hooker's parable

on "underpinning." See "Life and Letters," III., page 101 (note). Sir

Joseph is attacked with quite unnecessary vehemence on another point at

page 413.), but the article is directed against Huxley and for Thomson.

This review shows me--not that I required being shown--how devilish

a clever fellow Huxley is, for the reviewer cannot help admiring his

abilities. There are some good specimens of mathematical arrogance in

the review, and incidentally he shows how often astronomers have arrived

at conclusions which are now seen to be mistaken; so that geologists

might truly answer that we must be slow in admitting your conclusions.

Nevertheless, all uniformitarians had better at once cry "peccavi,"--not

but what I feel a conviction that the world will be found rather older

than Thomson makes it, and far older than the reviewer makes it. I am

glad I have faced and admitted the difficulty in the last edition of the

"Origin," of which I suppose you received, according to order, a copy.

LETTER 230. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 7th [1869].

There never was such a good man as you for telling me things which I

like to hear. I am not at all surprised that Hallett has found some

varieties of wheat could not be improved in certain desirable qualities

as quickly as at first. All experience shows this with animals; but it

would, I think, be rash to assume, judging from actual experience, that

a little more improvement could not be got in the course of a century,

and theoretically very improbable that after a few thousands [of years]

rest there would not be a start in the same line of variation. What

astonishes me as against experience, and what I cannot believe, is that

varieties already improved or modified do not vary in other respects.

I think he must have generalised from two or three spontaneously fixed

varieties. Even in seedlings from the same capsule some vary much more

than others; so it is with sub-varieties and varieties. (230/1. In

a letter of August 13th, 1869, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote correcting Mr.

Darwin's impression: "I did not mean to imply that Hallett affirmed that

all variation stopped--far from it: he maintained the contrary, but if

I understand him aright, he soon arrives at a point beyond which any

further accumulation in the direction sought is so small and so slow

that practically a fixity of type (not absolute fixity, however) is the

result.")

It is a grand fact about Anoplotherium (230/2. This perhaps refers to

the existence of Anoplotherium in the S. American Eocene formation: it

is one of the points in which the fauna of S. America resembles Europe

rather than N. America. (See Wallace "Geographical Distribution," I.,

page 148.)), and shows how even terrestrial quadrupeds had time formerly

to spread to very distinct regions. At each epoch the world tends to get

peopled pretty uniformly, which is a blessing for Geology.

The article in "N. British Review" (230/3. See Letter 229.) is well

worth reading scientifically; George D. and Erasmus were delighted with

it. How the author does hit! It was a euphuism to speak of a fling at

you: it was a kick. He is very unfair to Huxley, and accuses him of

"quibbling," etc.; yet the author cannot help admiring him extremely. I

know I felt very small when I finished the article. You will be amused

to observe that geologists have all been misled by Playfair, who was

misled by two of the greatest mathematicians! And there are other

such cases; so we could turn round and show your reviewer how cautious

geologists ought to be in trusting mathematicians.

There is another excellent original article, I feel sure by McClennan,

on Primeval Man, well worth reading.

I do not quite agree about Sabine: he is unlike every other soldier or

sailor I ever heard of if he would not put his second leg into the tomb

with more satisfaction as K.C.B. than as a simple man. I quite agree

that the Government ought to have made him long ago, but what does

the Government know or care for Science? So much for your splenditious

letter.

LETTER 231. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 14th [1869?]

I write one line to tell you that you are a real good man to

propose coming here for a Sunday after Exeter. Do keep to this good

intention...I am sure Exeter and your other visit will do you good. I

often wonder how you stand all your multifarious work.

I quite agree about the folly of the endless subscriptions for dead men;

but Faraday is an exception, and if you will pay three guineas for me,

it will save me some trouble; but it will be best to enclose a cheque,

which, as you will see, must be endorsed. If you read the "North British

Review," you will like to know that George has convinced me, from

correspondence in style, and spirit, that the article is by Tait, the

co-worker with Thomson.

I was much surprised at the leaves of Drosophyllum being always

rolled backwards at their tips, but did not know that it was a unique

character.

(PLATE: SIR J.D. HOOKER, 1870? From a photograph by Wallich.)

LETTER 232. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 13th [1869].

I heard yesterday from a relation who had seen in a newspaper that you

were C.B. I must write one line to say "Hurrah," though I wish it had

been K.C.B., as it assuredly ought to have been; but I suppose they look

at K.C.B. before C.B. as a dukedom before an earldom.

We had a very successful week in London, and I was unusually well and

saw a good many persons, which, when well, is a great pleasure to me. I

had a jolly talk with Huxley, amongst others. And now I am at the same

work as before, and shall be for another two months--namely, putting

ugly sentences rather straighter; and I am sick of the work, and, as the

subject is all on sexual selection, I am weary of everlasting males and

females, cocks and hens.

It is a shame to bother you, but I should like some time to hear about

the C.B. affair.

I have read one or two interesting brochures lately--viz., Stirling

the Hegelian versus Huxley and protoplasm; Tylor in "Journal of Royal

Institute" on the survivals of old thought in modern civilisation.

Farewell. I am as dull as a duck, both male and female.

To Dr. Hooker, C.B., F.R.S.

Dr. Hooker, K.C.B. (This looks better).

P.S. I hear a good account of Bentham's last address (232/1.

Presidential Address, chiefly on Geographical Distribution, delivered

before the "Linn. Soc." May 24th, 1869.), which I am now going to read.

I find that I have blundered about Bentham's address. Lyell was speaking

about one that I read some months ago; but I read half of it again last

night, and shall finish it. Some passages are either new or were not

studied enough by me before. It strikes me as admirable, as it did on

the first reading, though I differ in some few points.

Such an address is worth its weight in gold, I should think, in making

converts to our views. Lyell tells me that Bunbury has been wonderfully

impressed with it, and he never before thought anything of our views on

evolution.

P.S. (2). I have just read, and like very much, your review of Schimper.

(232/2. A review of Schimper's "Traite de Paleontologie Vegetale," the

first portion of which was published in 1869. "Nature," November 11th,

1869, page 48.)

LETTER 233. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 19th [1869].

Thank you much for telling me all about the C.B., for I much wished to

hear. It pleases me extremely that the Government have done this much;

and as the K.C.B.'s are limited in number (which I did not know), I

excuse it. I will not mention what you have told me to any one, as it

would be Murchisonian. But what a shame it is to use this expression,

for I fully believe that Murchison would take any trouble to get any

token of honour for any man of science.

I like all scientific periodicals, including poor "Scientific Opinion,"

and I think higher than you do of "Nature." Lord, what a rhapsody that

was of Goethe, but how well translated; it seemed to me, as I told

Huxley, as if written by the maddest English scholar. It is poetry, and

can I say anything more severe? The last number of the "Academy" was

splendid, and I hope it will soon come out fortnightly. I wish "Nature"

would search more carefully all foreign journals and transactions.

I am now reading a German thick pamphlet (233/1. "Die Abhangigheit

der Pflanzengestalt von Klima und Boden. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von

der Enstehung und Verbreitung der Arten, etc." Festschrift zur 43

Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Aertze in Innsbruck (Innsbruck,

1869).) by Kerner on Tubocytisus; if you come across it, look at the

map of the distribution of the eighteen quasi-species, and at the

genealogical tree. If the latter, as the author says, was constructed

solely from the affinities of the forms, then the distribution is

wonderfully interesting; we may see the very steps of the formation of

a species. If you study the genealogical tree and map, you will almost

understand the book. The two old parent connecting links just keep alive

in two or three areas; then we have four widely extended species, their

descendants; and from them little groups of newer descendants inhabiting

rather small areas...

LETTER 234. TO CAMILLE DARESTE. Down, November 20th, 1869.

Dear Sir,

I am glad that you are a candidate for the Chair of Physiology in Paris.

As you are aware from my published works, I have always considered your

investigations on the production of monstrosities as full of interest.

No subject is at the present time more important, as far as my judgment

goes, than the ascertaining by experiment how far structure can be

modified by the direct action of changed conditions; and you have thrown

much light on this subject.

I observe that several naturalists in various parts of Europe have

lately maintained that it is now of the highest interest for science to

endeavour to lessen, as far as possible, our profound ignorance on the

cause of each individual variation; and, as Is. Geoffroy St. Hilaire

long ago remarked, monstrosities cannot be separated by any distinct

line from slighter variations.

With my best wishes for your success in obtaining the Professorship, and

with sincere respect.

I have the honour to remain, dear sir, Yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.