chapter in which I have answered, I hope satisfactorily, Mr. Mivart's

supposed difficulty on the incipient development of useful structures.

I have also given my reasons for quite disbelieving in great and sudden

modifications. I am preparing an essay on expression in man and the

lower animals. It has little importance, but has interested me. I

doubt whether my strength will last for much more serious work. I

hope, however, to publish next summer the results of my long-continued

experiments on the wonderful advantages derived from crossing. I shall

continue to work as long as I can, but it does not much signify when

I stop, as there are so many good men fully as capable, perhaps more

capable, than myself of carrying on our work; and of these you rank as

the first.

With cordial good wishes for your success in all your work and for your

happiness.

LETTER 249. TO E. RAY LANKESTER. Down, April 15th [1872].

Very many thanks for your kind consideration. The correspondence was in

the "Athenaeum." I got some mathematician to make the calculation, and

he blundered and caused me much shame. I send scrap of proofs from last

edition of the "Origin," with the calculation corrected. What grand work

you did at Naples! I can clearly see that you will some day become our

first star in Natural History.

(249/1. Here follows the extract from the "Origin," sixth edition, page

51: "The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals,

and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of

natural increase. It will be safest to assume that it begins breeding

when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old,

bringing forth six young in the interval, and surviving till one hundred

years old; if this be so, after a period of from 740 to 750 years, there

would be nearly nineteen million elephants alive, descended from the

first pair." In the fifth edition, page 75, the passage runs: "If this

be so, at the end of the fifth century, there would be alive fifteen

million elephants, descended from the first pair" (see "Athenaeum," June

5, July 3, 17, 24, 1869).)

LETTER 250. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 10th [1872].

I received yesterday morning your present of that work to which I, for

one, as well as so many others, owe a debt of gratitude never to be

forgotten. I have read with the greatest interest all the special

additions; and I wish with all my heart that I had the strength and

time to read again every word of the whole book. (250/1. "Principles of

Geology," Edition XII., 1875.) I do not agree with all your criticisms

on Natural Selection, nor do I suppose that you would expect me to do

so. We must be content to differ on several points. I differ must about

your difficulty (page 496) (250/2. In Chapter XLIII. Lyell treats

of "Man considered with reference to his Origin and Geographical

Distribution." He criticizes the view that Natural Selection is capable

of bringing about any amount of change provided a series of minute

transitional steps can be pointed out. "But in reality," he writes, "it

cannot be said that we obtain any insight into the nature of the forces

by which a higher grade of organisation or instinct is evolved out of a

lower one by becoming acquainted with a series of gradational forms or

states, each having a very close affinity with the other."..."It is when

there is a change from an inferior being to one of superior grade, from

a humbler organism to one endowed with new and more exalted attributes,

that we are made to feel that, to explain the difficulty, we must obtain

some knowledge of those laws of variation of which Mr. Darwin grants

that we are at present profoundly ignorant" (op. cit., pages 496-97).)

on a higher grade of organisation being evolved out of lower ones. Is

not a very clever man a grade above a very dull one? and would not the

accumulation of a large number of slight differences of this kind lead

to a great difference in the grade of organisation? And I suppose that

you will admit that the difference in the brain of a clever and dull man

is not much more wonderful than the difference in the length of the nose

of any two men. Of course, there remains the impossibility of explaining

at present why one man has a longer nose than another. But it is foolish

of me to trouble you with these remarks, which have probably often

passed through your mind. The end of this chapter (XLIII.) strikes me as

admirably and grandly written. I wish you joy at having completed your

gigantic undertaking, and remain, my dear Lyell,

Your ever faithful and now very old pupil, CHARLES DARWIN.

LETTER 251. TO J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE. Sevenoaks, October 9th [1872].

I have just received your note, forwarded to me from my home. I thank

you very truly for your intended present, and I am sure that your book

will interest me greatly. I am delighted that you have taken up the

very difficult and most interesting subject of the habits of insects, on

which Englishmen have done so little. How incomparably more valuable

are such researches than the mere description of a thousand species! I

daresay you have thought of experimenting on the mental powers of

the spiders by fixing their trap-doors open in different ways and at

different angles, and observing what they will do.

We have been here some days, and intend staying some weeks; for I was

quite worn out with work, and cannot be idle at home.

I sincerely hope that your health is not worse.

LETTER 252. TO A. HYATT.

(252/1. The correspondence with Professor Hyatt, of Boston, U.S.,

originated in the reference to his and Professor Cope's theories of

acceleration and retardation, inserted in the sixth edition of the

"Origin," page 149.

Mr. Darwin, on receiving from Mr. Hyatt a copy of his "Fossil

Cephalopods of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Embryology," from the

"Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool." Harvard, Volume III., 1872, wrote as follows

(252/2. Part of this letter was published in "Life and Letters," III.,

page 154.):--)

October 10th, 1872.

I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in having sent me your

valuable memoir on the embryology of the extinct cephalopods. The work

must have been one of immense labour, and the results are extremely

interesting. Permit me to take this opportunity to express my sincere

regret at having committed two grave errors in the last edition of my

"Origin of Species," in my allusion to yours and Professor Cope's views

on acceleration and retardation of development. I had thought that

Professor Cope had preceded you; but I now well remember having formerly

read with lively interest, and marked, a paper by you somewhere in my

library, on fossil cephalopods, with remarks on the subject. (252/3. The

paper seems to be "On the Parallelism between the Different Stages of

Life in the Individual and those in the Entire Group of the Molluscous

Order Tetrabranchiata," from the "Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem." I.,

1866-69, page 193. On the back of the paper is written, "I cannot

avoid thinking this paper fanciful.") It seems also that I have quite

misrepresented your joint view; this has vexed me much. I confess that I

have never been able to grasp fully what you wish to show, and I presume

that this must be owing to some dulness on my part...As the case stands,

the law of acceleration and retardation seems to me to be a simple [?]

statement of facts; but the statement, if fully established, would

no doubt be an important step in our knowledge. But I had better say

nothing more on the subject, otherwise I shall perhaps blunder again.

I assure you that I regret much that I have fallen into two such grave

errors.

LETTER 253. A. HYATT TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(253/1. Mr. Hyatt replied in a long letter, of which only a small part

is here given.

Cannstadt bei Stuttgart, November 1872.

The letter with which you have honoured me, bearing the date of October

10th, has just reached here after a voyage to America and back.

I have long had it in mind to write you upon the subject of which you

speak, but have been prevented by a very natural feeling of distrust in

the worthiness and truth of the views which I had to present.

There is certainly no occasion to apologise for not having quoted

my paper. The law of acceleration and retardation of development was

therein used to explain the appearance of other phenomena, and might, as

it did in nearly all cases, easily escape notice.

My relations with Prof. Cope are of the most friendly character; and

although fortunate in publishing a few months ahead, I consider that

this gives me no right to claim anything beyond such an amount

of participation in the discovery, if it may be so called, as the

thoroughness and worth of my work entitles me to...

The collections which I have studied, it will be remembered, are fossils

collected without special reference to the very minute subdivisions,

such as the subdivisions of the Lower or Middle Lias as made by the

German authors, especially Quenstedt and Oppel, but pretty well defined

for the larger divisions in which the species are also well defined.

The condition of the collections as regards names, etc., was chaotic,

localities alone, with some few exceptions, accurate. To put this in

order they were first arranged according to their adult characteristics.

This proving unsatisfactory, I determined to test thoroughly the theory

of evolution by following out the developmental history of each species

and placing them within their formations, Middle or Upper Lias, Oolite

or so, according to the extent to which they represented each other's

characteristics. Thus an adult of simple structure being taken as the

starting-point which we will call a, another species which was a in

its young stage and became b in the adult was placed above it in the

zoological series. By this process I presently found that a, then a b

and a b c, c representing the adult stage, were very often found; but

that practically after passing these two or three stages it did not

often happen that a species was found which was a b c in the young and

then became d in the adult. But on the other hand I very frequently

found one which, while it was a in the young, skipped the stages b and

c and became d while still quite young. Then sometimes, though more

rarely, a species would be found belonging to the same series, which

would be a in the young and with a very faint and fleeting resemblance

to d at a later stage, pass immediately while still quite young to the

more advanced characteristics represented by e, and hold these as its

specific characteristics until old age destroyed them. This skipping is

the highest exemplification, or rather manifestation, of acceleration in

development. In alluding to the history of diseases and inheritance of

characteristics, you in your "Origin of Species" allude to the ordinary

manifestation of acceleration, when you speak of the tendency of

diseases or characteristics to appear at younger periods in the life of

the child than of its parents. This, according to my observations, is

a law, or rather mode, of development, which is applicable to all

characteristics, and in this way it is possible to explain why the young

of later-occurring animals are like the adult stages of those which

preceded them in time. If I am not mistaken you have intimated something

of this sort also in your first edition, but I have not been able to

find it lately. Of course this is a very normal condition of affairs

when a series can be followed in this way, beginning with species a,

then going through species a b to a b c, then a b d or a c d, and then

a d e or simply a e, as it sometimes comes. Very often the acceleration

takes place in two closely connected series, thus:

a--ab--abd--ae---ad

in which one series goes on very regularly, while another lateral

offshoot of a becomes d in the adult. This is an actual case which can

be plainly shown with the specimens in hand, and has been verified in

the collections here. Retardation is entirely Prof. Cope's idea, but I

think also easily traceable. It is the opponent of acceleration, so to

speak, or the opposite or negative of that mode of development. Thus

series may occur in which, either in size or characteristics, they

return to former characteristics; but a better discussion of this point

you will find in the little treatise which I send by the same mail as

this letter, "On Reversions among the Ammonites."

LETTER 254. TO A. HYATT. Down, December 4th, 1872.

I thank you sincerely for your most interesting letter. You refer much

too modestly to your own knowledge and judgment, as you are much better

fitted to throw light on your own difficult problems than I am.

It has quite annoyed me that I do not clearly understand yours and Prof.

Cope's views (254/1. Prof. Cope's views may be gathered from his "Origin

of the Fittest" 1887; in this book (page 41) is reprinted his "Origin

of Genera" from the "Proc. Philadelph. Acad. Nat. Soc." 1868, which was

published separately by the author in 1869, and which we believe to be

his first publication on the subject. In the preface to the "Origin of

the Fittest," page vi, he sums up the chief points in the "Origin

of Genera" under seven heads, of which the following are the most

important:--"First, that development of new characters has been

accomplished by an ACCELERATION or RETARDATION in the growth of the

parts changed...Second, that of EXACT PARALLELISM between the adult of

one individual or set of individuals, and a transitional stage of one or

more other individuals. This doctrine is distinct from that of an exact

parallelism, which had already been stated by von Baer." The last point

is less definitely stated by Hyatt in his letter of December 4th, 1872.

"I am thus perpetually led to look upon a series very much as upon an

individual, and think that I have found that in many instances these

afford parallel changes." See also "Lamarck the Founder of Evolution, by

A.S. Packard: New York, 1901.) and the fault lies in some slight degree,

I think, with Prof. Cope, who does not write very clearly. I think I

now understand the terms "acceleration" and "retardation"; but will

you grudge the trouble of telling me, by the aid of the following

illustration, whether I do understand rightly? When a fresh-water

decapod crustacean is born with an almost mature structure, and

therefore does not pass, like other decapods, through the Zoea stage,

is this not a case of acceleration? Again, if an imaginary decapod

retained, when adult, many Zoea characters, would this not be a case of

retardation? If these illustrations are correct, I can perceive why I

have been so dull in understanding your views. I looked for something

else, being familiar with such cases, and classing them in my own mind

as simply due to the obliteration of certain larval or embryonic stages.

This obliteration I imagined resulted sometimes entirely from that law

of inheritance to which you allude; but that it in many cases was

aided by Natural Selection, as I inferred from such cases occurring

so frequently in terrestrial and fresh-water members of groups, which

retain their several embryonic stages in the sea, as long as fitting

conditions are present.

Another cause of my misunderstanding was the assumption that in your

series

a--ab--abd--ae,--------ad

the differences between the successive species, expressed by the

terminal letter, was due to acceleration: now, if I understand rightly,

this is not the case; and such characters must have been independently

acquired by some means.

The two newest and most interesting points in your letter (and in,

as far as I think, your former paper) seem to me to be about senile

characteristics in one species appearing in succeeding species during

maturity; and secondly about certain degraded characters appearing in

the last species of a series. You ask for my opinion: I can only send

the conjectured impressions which have occurred to me and which are

not worth writing. (It ought to be known whether the senile character

appears before or after the period of active reproduction.) I should be

inclined to attribute the character in both your cases to the laws of

growth and descent, secondarily to Natural Selection. It has been an

error on my part, and a misfortune to me, that I did not largely discuss

what I mean by laws of growth at an early period in some of my books. I

have said something on this head in two new chapters in the last edition

of the "Origin." I should be happy to send you a copy of this edition,

if you do not possess it and care to have it. A man in extreme old age

differs much from a young man, and I presume every one would account for

this by failing powers of growth. On the other hand the skulls of some

mammals go on altering during maturity into advancing years; as do the

horns of the stag, the tail-feathers of some birds, the size of fishes

etc.; and all such differences I should attribute simply to the laws of

growth, as long as full vigour was retained. Endless other changes of

structure in successive species may, I believe, be accounted for by

various complex laws of growth. Now, any change of character thus

induced with advancing years in the individual might easily be inherited

at an earlier age than that at which it first supervened, and thus

become characteristic of the mature species; or again, such changes

would be apt to follow from variation, independently of inheritance,

under proper conditions. Therefore I should expect that characters of

this kind would often appear in later-formed species without the aid

of Natural Selection, or with its aid if the characters were of any

advantage. The longer I live, the more I become convinced how ignorant

we are of the extent to which all sorts of structures are serviceable

to each species. But that characters supervening during maturity in

one species should appear so regularly, as you state to be the case, in

succeeding species, seems to me very surprising and inexplicable.

With respect to degradation in species towards the close of a series,

I have nothing to say, except that before I arrived at the end of your

letter, it occurred to me that the earlier and simpler ammonites must

have been well adapted to their conditions, and that when the species

were verging towards extinction (owing probably to the presence of some

more successful competitors) they would naturally become re-adapted to

simpler conditions. Before I had read your final remarks I thought also

that unfavourable conditions might cause, through the law of growth,

aided perhaps by reversion, degradation of character. No doubt many new

laws remain to be discovered. Permit me to add that I have never been

so foolish as to imagine that I have succeeded in doing more than to lay

down some of the broad outlines of the origin of species.

After long reflection I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate

tendency to progressive development exists, as is now held by so many

able naturalists, and perhaps by yourself. It is curious how seldom

writers define what they mean by progressive development; but this is a

point which I have briefly discussed in the "Origin." I earnestly hope

that you may visit Hilgendorf's famous deposit. Have you seen Weismann's

pamphlet "Einfluss der Isolirung," Leipzig, 1872? He makes splendid use

of Hilgendorf's admirable observations. (254/2. Hilgendorf, "Monatsb.

K. Akad." Berlin, 1866. For a semi-popular account of Hilgendorf's and

Hyatt's work on this subject, see Romanes' "Darwin and after Darwin,"

I., page 201.) I have no strength to spare, being much out of health;

otherwise I would have endeavoured to have made this letter better

worth sending. I most sincerely wish you success in your valuable and

difficult researches.

I have received, and thank you, for your three pamphlets. As far as I

can judge, your views seem very probable; but what a fearfully intricate

subject is this of the succession of ammonites. (254/3. See various

papers in the publications of the "Boston Soc. Nat. Hist." and in the

"Bulletin of the Harvard Museum of Comp. Zoology.")

LETTER 255. A. HYATT TO CHARLES DARWIN. Cannstadt bei Stuttgart,

December 8th, 1872.

The quickness and earnestness of your reply to my letter gives me

the greatest encouragement, and I am much delighted at the unexpected

interest which your questions and comments display. What you say about

Prof. Cope's style has been often before said to me, and I have remarked

in his writings an unsatisfactory treatment of our common theory. This,

I think, perhaps is largely due to the complete absorption of his

mind in the contemplation of his subject: this seems to lead him to be

careless about the methods in which it may be best explained. He has,

however, a more extended knowledge than I have, and has in many ways a

more powerful grasp of the subject, and for that very reason, perhaps,

is liable to run into extremes. You ask about the skipping of the Zoea

stage in fresh-water decapods: is this an illustration of acceleration?

It most assuredly is, if acceleration means anything at all. Again,

another and more general illustration would be, if, among the marine

decapods, a series could be formed in which the Zoea stage became less

and less important in the development, and was relegated to younger and

younger stages of the development, and finally disappeared in those to

which you refer. This is the usual way in which the accelerated mode

of development manifests itself; though near the lowest or earliest

occurring species it is also to be looked for. Perhaps this to which

you allude is an illustration somewhat similar to the one which I have

spoken of in my series,

a--ab--abc--ae--------ad,

which like "a d" comes from the earliest of a series, though I should

think from the entire skipping of the Zoea stage that it must be, like

"a e," the result of a long line of ancestors. In fact, the essential

point of our theory is, that characteristics are ever inherited by the

young at earlier periods than they are assumed in due course of growth

by the parents, and that this must eventually lead to the extinction or

skipping of these characteristics altogether...

Such considerations as these and the fact that near the heads of series

or near the latest members of series, and not at the beginning, were

usually found the accelerated types, which skipped lower characteristics

and developed very suddenly to a higher and more complex standpoint in

structure, led both Cope and [myself] into what may be a great error. I

see that it has led you at least into the difficulty of which you very

rightly complain, and which, I am sorry to see, has cost you some

of your valuable time. We presumed that because characteristics were

perpetually inherited at earlier stages, that this very concentration

of the developed characteristics made room for the production of

differences in the adult descendants of any given pair. Further, that in

the room thus made other different characteristics must be produced, and

that these would necessarily appear earlier in proportion as the

species was more or less accelerated, and be greater or less in the same

proportion. Finally, that in the most accelerated, such as "a c" or "a

d," the difference would be so great as to constitute distinct genera.

Cope and I have differed very much, while he acknowledged the action of

the accumulated mode of development only when generic characteristics or

greater differences were produced, I saw the same mode of development to

be applicable in all cases and to all characteristics, even to diseases.

So far the facts bore us out, but when we assumed that the adult

differences were the result of the accelerated mode of development,

we were perhaps upon rather insecure ground. It is evidently this

assumption which has led you to misunderstand the theory. Cope founded

his belief, that the adult characteristics were also the result of

acceleration, if I rightly remember it, mainly upon the class of facts

spoken of above in man where a sudden change into two organs may produce

entirely new and unexpected differences in the whole organisation,

and upon the changes which acceleration appeared to produce in the

development of each succeeding species. Your difficulty in understanding

the theory and the observations you have made show me at once what my

own difficulties have been, but of these I will not speak at present, as

my letter is spinning itself out to a fearful length.

(255/1. After speaking of Cope's comparison of acceleration and

retardation in evolution to the force of gravity in physical matters Mr.

Hyatt goes on:--)

Now it [acceleration] seems to me to explain less and less the origin of

adult progressive characteristics or simply differences, and perhaps now

I shall get on faster with my work.

LETTER 256. TO A. HYATT. Down, December 14th [1872].

(256/1. In reply to the above letter (255) from Mr. Hyatt.)

Notwithstanding the kind consideration shown in your last sentence, I

must thank you for your interesting and clearly expressed letter. I

have directed my publisher to send you a copy of the last edition of the

"Origin," and you can, if you like, paste in the "From the Author"

on next page. In relation to yours and Professor Cope's view on

"acceleration" causing a development of new characters, it would, I

think, be well if you were to compare the decapods which pass and do not

pass through the Zoea stage, and the one group which does (according to

Fritz Muller) pass through to the still earlier Nauplius stages, and see

if they present any marked differences. You will, I believe, find that

this is not the case. I wish it were, for I have often been perplexed at

the omission of embryonic stages as well as the acquirement of peculiar

stages appearing to produce no special result in the mature form.

(256/2. The remainder of this letter is missing, and the whole of the

last sentence is somewhat uncertainly deciphered. (Note by Mr. Hyatt.))

LETTER 257. TO A. HYATT. Down, February 13th, 1877.

I thank you for your very kind, long, and interesting letter. The case

is so wonderful and difficult that I dare not express any opinion on it.

Of course, I regret that Hilgendorf has been proved to be so greatly

in error (257/1. This refers to a controversy with Sandberger, who had

attacked Hilgendorf in the "Verh. der phys.-med. Ges. zu Wurzburg," Bd.

V., and in the "Jahrb. der Malakol. Ges." Bd. I., to which Hilgendorf

replied in the "Zeitschr. d. Deutschen geolog. Ges." Jahrb. 1877.

Hyatt's name occurs in Hilgendorf's pages, but we find no reference to

any paper of this date; his well-known paper is in the "Boston. Soc.

Nat. Hist." 1880. In a letter to Darwin (May 23rd, 1881) Hyatt regrets

that he had no opportunity of a third visit to Steinheim, and goes on:

"I should then have done greater justice to Hilgendorf, for whom I have

such a high respect."), but it is some selfish comfort to me that I

always felt so much misgiving that I never quoted his paper. (257/2. In

the fifth edition of the "Origin" (page 362), however, Darwin speaks of

the graduated forms of Planorbis multiformis, described by Hilgendorf

from certain beds in Switzerland, by which we presume he meant the

Steinheim beds in Wurtemberg.) The variability of these shells is quite

astonishing, and seems to exceed that of Rubus or Hieracium amongst

plants. The result which surprises me most is that the same form should

be developed from various and different progenitors. This seems to show

how potent are the conditions of life, irrespectively of the variations

being in any way beneficial.

The production of a species out of a chaos of varying forms reminds me

of Nageli's conclusion, as deduced from the study of Hieracium, that

this is the common mode in which species arise. But I still continue to

doubt much on this head, and cling to the belief expressed in the first

edition of the "Origin," that protean or polymorphic species are those

which are now varying in such a manner that the variations are neither

advantageous nor disadvantageous. I am glad to hear of the Brunswick

deposit, as I feel sure that the careful study of such cases is highly

important. I hope that the Smithsonian Institution will publish your

memoir.

LETTER 258. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 18th [1873].

It was very good of you to give up so much of your time to write to me

your last interesting letter. The evidence seems good about the tameness

of the alpine butterflies, and the fact seems to me very surprising, for

each butterfly can hardly have acquired its experience during its own

short life. Will you be so good as to thank M. Humbert for his note,

which I have been glad to read. I formerly received from a man, not

a naturalist, staying at Cannes a similar account, but doubted about

believing it. The case, however, does not answer my query--viz., whether

butterflies are attracted by bright colours, independently of the

supposed presence of nectar?

I must own that I have great difficulty in believing that any temporary

condition of the parents can affect the offspring. If it last long

enough to affect the health or structure of the parents, I can quite

believe the offspring would be modified. But how mysterious a subject

is that of generation! Although my hypothesis of pangenesis has been

reviled on all sides, yet I must still look at generation under this

point of view; and it makes me very averse to believe in an emotion

having any effect on the offspring. Allow me to add one word about

blushing and shyness: I intended only to say the habit was primordially

acquired by attention to the face, and not that each shy man now

attended to his personal appearance.

LETTER 259. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 28th, 1873.

I write a line to wish you good-bye, as I hear you are off on Wednesday,

and to thank you for the Dionoea, but I cannot make the little creature

grow well. I have this day read Bentham's last address, and must

express my admiration of it. (259/1. Presidential address to the Linnean

Society, read May 24th, 1873.) Perhaps I ought not to do so, as he

fairly crushes me with honour.

I am delighted to see how exactly I agree with him on affinities, and

especially on extinct forms as illustrated by his flat-topped tree.

(259/2. See page 15 of separate copy: "We should then have the present

races represented by the countless branchlets forming the flat-topped

summit" of a genealogical tree, in which "all we can do is to map out

the summit as it were from a bird's-eye view, and under each cluster, or

cluster of clusters, to place as the common trunk an imaginary type of a

genus, order, or class according to the depth to which we would go.")

My recent work leads me to differ from him on one point--viz., on the

separation of the sexes. (259/3. On the question of sexuality, see

page 10 of Bentham's address. On the back of Mr. Darwin's copy he has

written: "As long as lowest organisms free--sexes separated: as soon as

they become attached, to prevent sterility sexes united--reseparated as

means of fertilisation, adapted [?] for distant [?] organisms,--in the

case of animals by their senses and voluntary movements,--with plants

the aid of insects and wind, the latter always existed, and long

retained." The two words marked [?] are doubtful. The introduction

of freedom or attachedness, as a factor in the problem also occurs in

"Cross and Self-fertilisation," page 462. I strongly suspect that sexes

were primordially in distinct individuals; then became commonly united

in the same individual, and then in a host of animals and some few

plants became again separated. Do ask Bentham to send a copy of his

address to "Dr. H. Muller, Lippstadt, Prussia," as I am sure it will

please him GREATLY.

...When in France write me a line and tell me how you get on, and how

Huxley is; but do not do so if you feel idle, and writing bothers you.

LETTER 260. TO R. MELDOLA.

(260/1. This letter, with others from Darwin to Meldola, is published in

"Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," by E.B. Poulton,

pages 199 et seq., London, 1896.)

Southampton, August 13th, 1873.

I am much obliged for your present, which no doubt I shall find at Down

on my return home. I am sorry to say that I cannot answer your question;

nor do I believe that you could find it anywhere even approximately

answered. It is very difficult or impossible to define what is meant

by a large variation. Such graduate into monstrosities or generally

injurious variations. I do not myself believe that these are often or

ever taken advantage of under nature. It is a common occurrence that

abrupt and considerable variations are transmitted in an unaltered

state, or not at all transmitted, to the offspring, or to some of them.

So it is with tailless or hornless animals, and with sudden and great

changes of colour in flowers. I wish I could have given you any answer.

LETTER 261. TO E.S. MORSE. [Undated.]

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your kindness in sending me

your essay on the Brachiopoda. (261/1. "The Brachiopoda, a Division of

Annelida," "Amer. Assoc. Proc." Volume XIX., page 272, 1870, and "Annals

and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., page 267, 1870.) I have just read

it with the greatest interest, and you seem to me (though I am not a

competent judge) to make out with remarkable clearness an extremely

strong case. What a wonderful change it is to an old naturalist to have

to look at these "shells" as "worms"; but, as you truly say, as far as

external appearance is concerned, the case is not more wonderful than

that of cirripedes. I have also been particularly interested by your

remarks on the Geological Record, and on the lower and older forms in

each great class not having been probably protected by calcareous valves

or a shell.

P.S.--Your woodcut of Lingula is most skilfully introduced to compel one

to see its likeness to an annelid.

LETTER 262. TO H. SPENCER.

(262/1. Mr. Spencer's book "The Study of Sociology," 1873, was published

in the "Contemporary Review" in instalments between May 1872 and October

1873.)

October 31st [1873].

I am glad to receive to-day an advertisement of your book. I have been

wonderfully interested by the articles in the "Contemporary." Those were

splendid hits about the Prince of Wales and Gladstone. (262/2. See "The

Study of Sociology," page 392. Mr. Gladstone, in protest against some

words of Mr. Spencer, had said that the appearance of great men "in

great crises of human history" were events so striking "that men would

be liable to term them providential in a pre-scientific age." On this

Mr. Spencer remarks that "in common with the ancient Greek Mr. Gladstone

regards as irreligious any explanation of Nature which dispenses with

immediate Divine superintendence." And as an instance of the

partnership "between the ideas of natural causation and of providential

interference," he instances a case where a prince "gained popularity

by outliving certain abnormal changes in his blood," and where "on the

occasion of his recovery providential aid and natural causation were

unitedly recognised by a thanksgiving to God and a baronetcy to the

doctor." The passage on Toryism is on page 395, where Mr. Spencer, with

his accustomed tolerance, writes: "The desirable thing is that a growth

of ideas and feelings tending to produce modification shall be joined

with a continuance of ideas and feelings tending to preserve stability."

And from this point of view he concludes it to be very desirable that

"one in Mr. Gladstone's position should think as he does." The matter

is further discussed in the notes to Chapter XVI., page 423.) I never

before read a good defence of Toryism. In one place (but I cannot for

the life of me recollect where or what it exactly was) I thought that

you would have profited by my principle (i.e. if you do not reject it)

given in my "Descent of Man," that new characters which appear late

in life are those which are transmitted to the same sex alone. I have

advanced some pretty strong evidence, and the principle is of great

importance in relation to secondary sexual likenesses. (262/3. This

refers to Mr. Spencer's discussion of the evolution of the mental traits

characteristic of women. At page 377 he points out the importance of

the limitation of heredity by sex in this relation. A striking

generalisation on this question is given in the "Descent of Man,"

Edition I., Volume II., page 285: that when the adult male differs from

the adult female, he differs in the same way from the young of both

sexes. Can this law be applied in the case in which the adult female

possesses characters not possessed by the male: for instance, the high

degree of intuitive power of reading the mental states of others and of

concealing her own--characters which Mr. Spencer shows to be accounted

for by the relations between the husband and wife in a state of

savagery. If so, the man should resemble "the young of both sexes" in

the absence of these special qualities. This seems to be the case with

some masculine characteristics, and childishness of man is not without

recognition among women: for instance, by Dolly Winthrop in "Silas

Marner," who is content with bread for herself, but bakes cake for

children and men, whose "stomichs are made so comical, they want a

change--they do, I know, God help 'em.") I have applied it to man and

woman, and possibly it was here that I thought that you would have

profited by the doctrine. I fear that this note will be almost

illegible, but I am very tired.

LETTER 263. G.J. ROMANES TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(263/1. This is, we believe, the first letter addressed by the late Mr.

Romanes to Mr. Darwin. It was put away with another on the same subject,

and inscribed "Romanes on Abortion, with my answer (very important)."

Mr. Darwin's answer given below is printed from his rough draft, which

is in places barely decipherable. On the subject of these letters

consult Romanes, "Darwin and after Darwin," Volume II., page 99, 1895.)

Dunskaith, Parkhill, Ross-shire, July 10th, 1874.

Knowing that you do not dissuade the more attentive of your readers from

communicating directly to yourself any ideas they may have upon subjects

connected with your writings, I take the liberty of sending the enclosed

copy of a letter, which I have recently addressed to Mr. Herbert

Spencer. You will perceive that the subject dealt with is the same as

that to which a letter of mine in last week's "Nature" [July 2nd,

page 164] refers--viz., "Disuse as a Reducing Cause in Species."

In submitting this more detailed exposition of my views to your

consideration, I should like to state again what I stated in "Nature"

some weeks ago, viz., that in propounding the cessation of selection as

a reducing cause, I do not suppose that I am suggesting anything which

has not occurred to you already. Not only is this principle embodied

in the theory set forth in the article on Rudimentary Organs ("Nature,"